Why is Law Enforcement allowed to have automatic weapons and not the Public?[argue]

THE Accuracy of fireing on 3rnd burst or FA makes me ponder, what is the purpose of AW's for Law Enforcement?[argue]

Can anyone give a cenario where a LEO would be justified to fire on FA or 3rnd burst?[argue]

If some of you know, share it please.[argue]

I would love to leagally have one.[50]

But as with my teenagers, I doubt I could afford to feed it. [buttkick]

MY EDITED QUESTIONS

Good replies.

I will be more specific.

I thought LEOs could own FAs and take them home, even if they were not on a special or swat team.

Is this true or false?

Yes, I can own class 3 weapons. But why should joe public have too pay extra to do so leagally?

Some situations have been Given for uses in Law Enforcement cenarios.

IMHO a semi auto can lay down supressive fire at a very high rate.

The pictures of an infantryman holding a M16 over cover (i.e. truck hood or sand bags) and laying down supressive fire should not happen in a city or nieghborhood in the USA.

But I have not been under fire and will give way to more experienced men who have.

How about the LA bank robbery?

I don't think many LEO's have FA the only ones I have seen is swat?

Ahh, but Sherm, what of us private n0n-leo citizens who deem it neccesary?  What then?

FA has some valid tactical applications with LE, but they are limited (and pretty much exclusively for SWAT type units) and most situations can be and are dealt with much more effectively by using "SEMI," a good stance, trigger control and well-aimed fire.

Some specific situations would be:

If equipped with pistol caliber subguns, FA is kind of a must, and more easily justified (and necessary), but only by [b]well-trained operators[/b]. ALthough this make spark another one of those seemingly unstoppable "stopping power"/"shot placement"/"death-ray" debates, if you are trying to stop a threat with pistol caliber rounds, more rounds on target are better. For this reason, among many others, pistol-caliber subguns like the venerable MP5 are rapidly fading out of LE service for .223 caliber carbines.

Suppressive fire when disengaging or recovering wounded personnel, and suppressive fire really isn't the correct term, for those who remember the military term. There is a move to refer to this as "directed fire," because LE can't lay down a storm of rounds (and shouldn't, even if they could) to cover movement or suppress hostile actions. Again, this is a limited situation and one that will pretty much only come up for tactical folks, who are trained and use FA weapons. While they train for this situation, use of this type of tactic is rare and really one of those "etxreme cases" that one should be prepared for, but will probably never come up.

There are some other situations like stopping/disabling vehicles under very specific circumstances, maritime use (more of military/Coast Guard/Harbor Police thing than standard LE), and barricade pentration that come to mind, but these are once again limited-use, tactical folks only options. The average Patrol officer is adequately armed with a semi only shoulder weapon, though some of the "Assault Weapon" features from the 94 ban are pretty handy, like having a pistol grip, a collapsible stock and a flash hider. Training for officers at all levels is to always only shoot when you can get a hit, never fire indiscriminately, and account for every round. FA weapons aren't needed for most LE deadly force encounters, though there are specific situation where it is nice to have.

I have an issued FA weapon, and I have yet to ever dial it up to AUTO except on the range and doing function checks. Every thing I have been to yet )knock on wood here) has been easily dealt with on SEMI. I hope it stays that way.

You can own FA weapons, as long as you live in a free state (which I think includes AZ). The main differenc is that LE gets to buy post-86 weapons. If I had my way, the 86 ban would die, so we could all afford resonably priced MGs. The way things are now, the only LEOs I know who own personal Title II weapons are feds, and that's because they make twice what us local guys do and can afford it. I would love to own an MP5SD, but 11K is a bit steep for me (hell, the 2.5K that they cost agencies new these days is too steep for me).

The public is allowed to own automatic weapons.  Just depends on your state and pre 86 made weapons.

Like 7 said, the public IS allowed to own automatic weapons...
Just depends on what state you live in...

Here in PA pretty much "anything goes"...

Machineguns, silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, AOW's, etc...

For civilian ownership, MG's must be Mfg'd before '86...These are called "transferrables".

A civilian can still buy or Mfg a new silencer, SBR, SBS, or AOW...

Either way, it takes a LONG time, and a LOT of money...





Some say PA is the "Texas" of the Northeast...
[:D]

After meeting some of the MG owners, and becoming one myself, I'd have to agree...

What?? How would that have helped the LAPD???
FA is pretty much good for two things:
Wasting large amounts of ammo
Supressive fire in a fire and manuever action.

LEO have no need for FA. Most can't even shoot a semi auto accurately. They come to the matches thinkging they're badasses 'cause they have 'training'. By the second round- they've all slunk to their cars and disappeared without saying anything. Funny as shit to watch.

You answered your own question

Supressive fire

LOL, nope not even close.  What the police needed there was a single shot 30-06.




The key word there is 'allowed', and it is only 'allowed' if you ask permission, and pay a restrictive 'tax'.

UM, as far as I'm aware, you ARE allowed to own Class 3 weapons in AZ...

(as long as they were mfg'd before '86)

or Tac triggers

Are you on crack or something?? You think the LEO should have been spraying full auto (usually unaimed) fire in a residential neighborhood???
Only hits count- not the number of rounds fired.
Something like 1500 rounds fired- how many people actually killed??? None of those idiots could hit anything.

Yeah, thats just what I said, they should have been spraying the neighborhood with unaimed full auto fire.  Hell, why even bother shooting BACK at the 2 armed bank robbers in Kevlar, lets just shoot up the neighborhood indisciminately.

Unfortunately, the dept issue 9mm pistol (40?) was as about as effective as a slingshot against those guys.

Where are you in PA?

Phased, in Plymouth Meeting: Soccor Mom country, but see my post about Mrs. Phased buying 'More Guns, Less Crime' by John Lott.  

Umm sure- have you even seen any of the videos?
I think if a couple of officers would ahve employed semi auto Ar' and a 12 or two- they could have handled the problem. Shit the news 'copter was close enough to have been a viable platform. This was after the riots in '92 the cops still got caught napping, and let it drag out for almost an hour.

nope to that one well placed shot into the chest of each suspect with a .308 bolt gun and the problem is solved.

Thanks Natez, that answers MY questions.

I will let the rest ask theirs.

I still would like to see NO restrictions firearm ownership by law abiding citizens.

I dont think that they had patrol rifles until this incident, thats why the incident didnt end until they went to a gun store borrowed rifles (ar15's I think).

I agree that even a semi auto AR15 would have done the job but until that day the officers were only issued 9mm (40) pistols.

Think of all the major shootouts over the past 20 years or so, how many of them really required the use of FA weapons on the part of a city PD, sure bring up Waco and the branch devidians, but that was a fed thing. Ruby Ridge, again a fed thing. The north hollywood bank robbery was almost a good example, but than by blasting away FA the police would be creating a dangerous situation for the community(thou the BGs had accomplished that themselves) I personnaly can not think of a single situation that has happened were the local PD would have been justified to go FA. Now BP guys and some of the park rangers in the south along the border were it might be one or two officers against 4,5,6,10 dope smugglers with FAs i can see where a FA would come in handy.

I'm sure YOU would have done a much better job up against 2 HEAVILY armed and HEAVILY armored bank robbers if you were shot and wounded and armed only with a handgun.

I agree that a semi auto AR15 would suffice in MOST situations, hell even a bolt action rifle is better than a handgun, but the fact is that most big city police departments are not trained or equipped (We are not even allowed - dept policy) to carry shotguns or rifles on patrol.  It takes something like the LA bank robbery to change the mind of the dept/city council/mayor/public opinion/press.

Here in NYC, even after Sept 11th, there is still not a single shotgun or rifle to be found in any of the cities precinct stationhouses.  As in LA, we would have to request Emergency Services (SWAT) and wait for them to respond from God knows where, fighting city traffic.  Its only a matter of time before WE get kicked in our nuts in here in NYC.  Unfortunately, the city will react after the fact.

If there is one thing i have noticed as a similarity between privete security and LE it's this, no one listens when you tell them about a potential problem until it becomes a problem and than it's way to late, and the other thing is that there seems to be a tendency NOT to allow the right tools or the needed tools to be utilised by those that know best if they need them or not, and those that know best are the one out pounding the pavment day in and day out. Really i think every squad should have at least a carbine in the trunk because sometimes the SRT, SWAT whatever team can't get there in time to prevent a small problem from becoming a major problem. that was th case with the NH bank robbery. I mean imagine if the first officer on the scean had an AR in the trunk when those bastards oppened up,  that/those officer(s) would have been equipped to handle that situation and it would not have gotten that far out of hand.

Like I said, it has to be approved by:
the public, the mayor, city council, department policy makers, corporation council (city lawyers), the press, and every other special interest group that feels that they have a say in how to run the poilice department.  Then come the lawsuits and appeals.

Everyone has a say in the matter except the police.

Steven

[soapbox]
That is so wrong(i.e. Political correctness).

LEOs should have the proper tools to do their job.

My question was "why the need for FA or 3rnd burst".

IMHO ALL LEO's should have the options of having an "long gun" with them on/off duty.

As should any citizen in good standing.

Hell on the rural parts of our borders they should issue FA and those little potato lauchers the Military has hung under theirs.

[soapbox]

Actually, the guns acquired from the local gun store played no part in the ending of that scenario.  It was multiple hits from the various officers and a *well placed* self inflicted head wound that killed the first guy.  The SWAT guys took care of the second robber with their frontal assault and issued weapons.

What that did do was point out the need for more of the officers to have long guns available to them.  LAPD has since received a large number of surplus AR rifles (M16s?) that have as yet not been issued, IIRC.

A: I thought at least some of the LAPD carried shotguns.
B: Only an idiot would cruise LA with [b]only[/b] a pistol- a 9MM no less!

Deep-six '86!

Let us buy "new."

I really should know better than to wade into the middle of this, but here goes:

I cannot see any circumstances in which a civilian law enforcement officer needs an automatic weapon.  If you are employing a pistol-caliber submachine gun which is only effective in burst-mode, then you are using the wrong gun.  As for suppressive fire, you are legally responsible for every round that comes out of your weapon.  If you do not have a clearly identifiable target, you have got [b]no[/b] business pulling the trigger.

Just my 2¢.

To answer 7 and Dragracer_Art:

To say that civilians can own FA weapons is like saying gun laws do not infringe on a civilian's rights.  The effect AND PURPOSE of the 1934 NFA and 1986 amendment to the GOPA laws was to make such firearms financially and bureaucratically out of reach for the average citizen.  If the jumping through hoops getting the paperwork in order and approved is not enough, the potential civilian machinegun owner is then faced with a $200 tax (which in 1934 was insurmountable, like a $10,000 tax today) and a firearm price in the many thousands of dollars, IF he can even find one for sale, and a Class III dealer to transfer it to him.

Anyone who says "all you gotta do is..." is, well, a BS'er.  The only machineguns I know of in civvie hands are manufacturers and dealers.  The only individuals I know with machineguns are LEO's... no, wait, their DEPARTMENT owns the weapon.  They just get to hold it every so often, and that is only as long as they are a LEO.

In answer as to why a LEO needs full auto, a good friend and head of a SWAT team, and an instructor, advises, "We are not in the business of killing everybody in a room.  I teach semi-auto only, from the shoulder, looking through the sights."

The applications are really limited. Agencies with large international harbors need a weapon capable of stopping large boats.

Several years back the CHP needed, and did not have, a weapon capable of stopping a Greyhound bus, which was being used as the worlds largest club.

During the same time frame San Diego needed a weapon capable of stopping an M60 tank.

Mmm...ships [i]maybe[/i]- busses nor tanks would require full auto. Now pot smokers- that's a different story- right??? Those hopped up dankheads will absorb massive amount of lead before they drop their hackey-sacks and frisbees.