User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:25:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Most agencies do not provide FA weapons to it's officers. Only our SWAT guys have access to them here. I know my chief would not be signing off on a street officer wanting to buy a FA weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:29:12 PM EDT
[#2]
only our swat team has full auto ars, our street units have semi auto personally owned weapons that they qualed with. and thats a big negative on taking possesion of a dept issued full atuo after you retire |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:30:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Being a LEO does not allow you any special treatment when it comes to NFA firearms. Your department can issue you an automatic weapon and you don't have to have a stamp for it but chances are that a weapon owned by your department can not legally be transferred to you now or when you retire.
I don't know of any departments that issue automatic weapons to anyone but members of their S.W.A.T. teams. If you want to own an automatic weapon you must jump through the same hoops as everyone else. The BATF will treat you exactly like everyone alse also. Hope this helps even though it's probably not what you were hoping to hear. Phylodog |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:31:06 PM EDT
[#4]
I don't want to work in California, but I do know that California patrol officers, local and CHP, have AR's in their cruisers (since the Hollywood incident). I guess it's a regional response but I assumed in freer states a chief would be more lenient. So what about selling Class III's after retirement? Is it possible? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 4:13:54 PM EDT
[#5]
I don't think I would mention this desire when it comes time to the interview. If I was interviewing, it would set off a red flag. Kinda like the trooper applicant that when a trooper came to his house for a meet and greet as part of the app process, was proudly shown that he could provide his own car, complete with radar, striping, sans lights. Just gives me a vibe like that.
The issuance of rifles in agencies in this country varies. Some still only allow shotguns. Some don't like the militaristic appearance of AR's, hence the Remington pump rifles that use AR mags. I have a auto subgun for part of my duties. I would give it up as yeah, its fun, but I don't need it. What is important is the ability to have Short Barreled Rifles in semi auto, which you can get depending on the state for a $200 tax to the BATFE. These can be sold to anyone that goes through the application process and is approved. The ability to buy these doens't mean you will be able to carry one on duty however. LEO Agency heads tend to have to think in liability terms, and if they sense the slightest liability issue the idea will be tossed in the round file immediately. Some heads are positive to the ideas, and others just need some good reasoning, while others won't listen to any reason. And things can change 180-degrees just from either an incident occuring or a simple change in personnel or a new head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 4:19:48 PM EDT
[#6]
I wouldn't have mentioned anything during an interview.
I just consider it a job perk to not have to pay $15,000 for a $1,500 firearm. I posted here instead of a legal forum because I thought someone might have personal experience with a particular department's willingness to allow officers full auto firearms. Aside from an on-duty weapon, would a police chief be inclined to help an officer get a personal full auto? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 7:33:09 PM EDT
[#7]
I would say no, a chief would not sign off on a FA weapon for personal use or even duty use. I think if you want a FA weapon, your going to have to fork the bill yourself. But anyway, good luck w/ your endeavors!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 8:08:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Short answer. Being a LEO has NO advantage for full auto. Even if you are issued one, it’s still theirs (the .gov).
BTW, I am in charge of obtaining weapons for my PD along with another officer. I received some M16s though a program. I converted them to semi only. Most patrol units do the same thing at other agencies for everyone but SWAT. My personal opinion is that full auto is NOT ideal for a patrol officer, and 3 round burst is best. I have heard some SWAT instructors say they feel the same way for SWAT, 3 round is the way to go. Now, if I was rich, and since I’m in KY, I could personally own one :-) so don't join for this reason. Art in KY |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 5:14:06 AM EDT
[#9]
I know of an agency that allowed it's officers to buy FA weapons for personal use. However, they had to return them to the agency when they left. It was kind of a shady deal and the new sheriff doesn't allow that any more.
I also know an officer with that same agency who was approved to buy a MP5. He did and then after a little research found out that the person who sold it to him, did so improperly. He contacted the ATF and the receiver had to be destroyed. Forget this idea. As much as I like firearms, they are only a small part of the LE job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 5:50:36 AM EDT
[#10]
What he said. Only the department can buy a new "cheap" full-auto. Ownership cannot be transferred to an individual officer. Period. No department around here issues full-auto to anyone except SWAT. Our military surplus M16 rifles have all been converted to semi-only for patrol use. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 6:36:39 AM EDT
[#11]
I am out department AR armorer and so far have been unable to convince the powers that be to convert our M16's to semi only and put them on the street. I wrote up a nice long rifle proposal which is probably collecting dust on some Major's desk if I am lucky. Most of our M16s are collecting dust in the arms room where they have been since the day I unpacked them. We have a few of them that are still FA for SWAT use which is better than nothing I guess. I take a rifle out with me every day since I am on SWAT, but we need more of them on the street. It's frustrating. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 8:58:10 AM EDT
[#12]
Our sheriff department issues full auto m16s to the deputies. they bought them through some government program. My department will let you carry your own rifle has to be semi auto only, which is fine with me.full auto has it place but when you got three or four officers with semi auto rifles or shotguns you should be completely covered in all the areas. I personally like to be able to hit my target accurately not throw alot of lead. Just my .02 cents. JC
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 9:39:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Full auto has very limited applications for police work. I have carried a patrol rifle for 5 years, and have deployed it on a number of occaisions. At no time, did I ever see the need for automatic fire. Further, having been an Infantryman, regular Army, for 8 years, never did I see the need as a rifleman/grenadier for ever using "burst" on my M16A2. When auto fire is needed is during ambushes, raids, deliberate attacks, and breaking contact by fire. These are suppresive fire functions and are limited to military operations. Police officers have to account for EVERY round that leaves the muzzle. Full auto makes that very difficult to do. Chiefs do not have the authority to allow individual officers to keep full auto agency weapons after they retire. Cops have to buy their class III stuff on the economy like every civilian. And that, IMO, is a good thing. I'm not a huge proponent of police getting special treatment, just because we have a shield. Civilians should be able to have high cap mags, "eveil featured black rifles", and automatic knives, too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 11:14:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Sounds like you are considering being a cop for all of the wrong reasons
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 12:11:22 PM EDT
[#15]
The way police spray targets in California, I'd believe it if someone told me they use Glock 18's. 1 out of 100 bullets ever hits a suspect, and it's usually in an elbow or something. Amazing.
This is actually the reason I asked this question to begin with. Remember about 2 months ago that retired officer whose safe was raided by his son or something? The guy was shooting targets in his closet and the bullets wers going through the wall and striking a neighbor's house. I remember them mentioning the retired officer had an "arsenal" (which actually probably means 5 guns) and that some were full auto. The article wasn't phrased in a way that made me think the full auto part was a liberty taken by the author.
Nah, as I said, it would be a side benefit. And only one reason was being discussed in this thread, I made no mention of bribes, beatings or sticking my nose in other people's business because I'd be wearing a badge. Those would be all the wrong reasons.  Thanks for all your help, folks, I appreciate it. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 12:15:29 PM EDT
[#16]
Getting into law enforcement for the perks is already a bad sign.
You'll be lucky to retire in one piece with a paycheck and a pension. And looking for loopholes, or ways to exploit the system for personal gain is one sure way to end up in prison. If you want a machine gun, move out of California, pony up the money and be done with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 3:58:12 PM EDT
[#17]
I carry a suppressed MP5 as an entry team member for Meth Labs and Narcotics Warrants. The weapon is fully auto, and belongs to the department, not me. I do not think that by being an LEO I should have any greater access to owning weapons that civilians cannot own. Here in Washington, individuals cannot own automatic weapons, only Law Enforcement Agencies and Military Forces.
If the reason you want to be a cop is to have access to these weapons, I think you should reconsider you reasons for wanting to become a peace officer. As someone else previously stated, weapons are only a small part of what an LEO deals with on a daily basis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 5:36:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Guys, I've already said several times, I'm not considering the job to get an automatic. I was asking if it's possible. Information only. Side benefit.
I'm glad you guys think officers should not have personal access to automatics where civilians do not, but that's not the way the government thinks. I just wanted to clear it up. Again, I'm not considering becoming a police officer just to get my hands on an automatic. That was only a small part, and reading what I've read in this thread, now it's moot. Edit: Thanks again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 6:06:22 PM EDT
[#19]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 7:55:29 PM EDT
[#21]
"The way police spray targets in California, I'd believe it if someone told me they use Glock 18's. 1 out of 100 bullets ever hits a suspect, and it's usually in an elbow or something. Amazing."
Next time you go to the range, who don't you see if you can get someone to stand at the other end and shoot back at you. I'm guessing your groups would be just a tad bit larger than when you're shooting at paper. Then again, maybe you're "the one" and if so, I hear the super elite navy seal delta force ninjas are looking for uber tactical super-operators to form Rainbow Seven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 8:50:34 PM EDT
[#22]
We're getting off topic here, but I'll continue anyway.
A few months ago there was a guy in a white SUV fleeing from 3 or 4 officers on foot. There is a video of this. They opened fire on the guy and peppered the house behind his SUV with over 130 rounds. Something like 11 rounds hit the SUV (AN SUV! AND HE WASN'T SHOOTING!) and the guy was only hit ONCE. You're telling me you wouldn't expect 4 officers to hit a man-sized target from 10 feet away, when he's moving in a perfectly straight line? Or at the least hit only his gigantic SUV with almost every round? It's ok that they shot wildly, not unlike the thugs they chase, and destroyed someone's house? What's the mandated training interval for officers? One live-fire qualification every 6 months right? And I'd bet 95% of officers just *hate* going to qualify. Edit: Look, I don't want to get anyone angry here. I want to join a police force to set an example, and in areas like Los Angeles, change the thinking of officers. I don't agree with the way some officers conduct themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 9:06:03 PM EDT
[#23]
I appreciate that you do not want o make people angry here but you're touching on a sore subject for some of us. You are correct in assuming that most officers hate having to qualify their weapons and I make no excuses for them. I also do not armchair quarterback what other officers do or don't do unless I was there. Don't think for a second that what you saw in that video reflects everything that was going on. A video is a two dimensional account shot from one perspective only and sometimes they're great, sometimes they're not. The national average for "hits" by police is very low and the majority of police shootings ccur within seven yards. I realize that sounds terrible but when you are truly in fear of your life, your body doesn't necessrily do what you want it to. That's where training comes into play, if you have trained properly then you won't have to think when SHTF, you will simply react.
I say all of this because I have been in that type of situation and I did not have to think about what to do. I did exactly what I had trained to do and what I had visualized over and over again that I would do. I can tell you that when someone is pointing a gun at you with evil intent, everything changes. If you truly want to be a LEO for the right reasons, perhaps someday you will know what I am talking about. I hope that you aren't put into that type of situation, but I'd like to talk to you the day after it happened if you did. I'm sure you would have quite a different attitude. Take care |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 9:15:44 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 9:30:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Positive of the round count. It was over 100. I guess I didn't get the number of officers right. Here's a quick Google: http://www.atsnn.com/story/139591.html Edit: Better video link at the very bottom center: http://panafrican.tv/product_info.php?cPath=67&products_id=161 You can see only about 3 bullets hit the windshield. I believe the total rounds hitting the SUV was less than 15, with only 1 hitting the perp and 1 hitting a deputy.
I have not tried to hit a target that's trying to run me over, but neither did any but one of the officers, they were in an arc around the SUV. Only one was in danger, and only he could concievably be excused for shooting wildly.
Must be different in Blue states.
I'm glad to hear that it's not the norm. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 6:42:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Perhaps a better career choice for you might be the USMC? They play with all kinds of cool full auto stuff and do so all the time. If the Marines aren't for you, perhaps the Army? You could opt into the MP program. This way you could satisfy your LE interests and still have access to full auto firearms. Just a thought
 Regards, Gary |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 7:24:37 AM EDT
[#27]
well kid... next time you try killing another human being while simultaneously doing aerobics and shitting your pants come on back and post about your tight shot group. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:20:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Are you really saying you are just  ing?
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:24:52 AM EDT
[#29]
I respect every one of you for what you do, I truely do. But that doesn't mean you're better than me and can act as such.
I'm don't think I like the Brothers of the Shield forum anymore. I think I'll stick to General Discussion where it's safe. I'll leave it up to you to determine what that means. Thanks again to those who answered my questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 12:43:14 PM EDT
[#30]
If you think GD is worth a shit than you need help. Quite frankly, if you cant take a little heat in here, you probably cant deal on the road either. Noone has made a comment that could or should be construed as "I'm better than you". My determination is that you are a "Tackleberry" type. If the gear is what you are interested in, then you will be disappointed. Our weapons are the last thing we want to use. The most powerful weapon in a police officers arsenal is his mind, not his sidearm or his long gun. If you want full auto, man the hell up and enlist in the branch of you choosing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 1:36:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Kid, if you can't handle the heat in here, you might wanna think about how you're supposed to handle and control things ont he street. The attitude you are coming off with is setting off those that have done things already. You say that we aren't better than you, and I agree. HOWEVER, you're coming in here saying that you want to change the way officers think and conduct themselves, and that demonstrates that YOU think YOU'RE better than those officers.
Your youth and naietivity precedes you. I highly suggest thinking of what you're saying before you make comments such as the ones you have been throwing forth. It would demonstrate that you're actually growing up. IM if you need further details. I wish for you to suceed if you're actually looking at the field, but for you to suceed, you need to make some changes. You won't change the world-the world will change you. That's the fact of life of copping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2006 1:01:00 PM EDT
[#32]
I'm sorry if I came across a little brash. No one here will tell you they are better than you. One thing you won't find is the super duper great new technologies available to you in this line of work.
Most agencies/departments are super conservative. Our polices are written in blood of officers who came before us. I would say it's fairly safe to say that the majority of the street officers here are very pro gun. However It pissses me off when I see people screwing up out on the street with their firearms. They make it harder for you and me to operate as freely as we do. If you were sincere in your question based upon some retired officer screwing up. I will say shame on him... That's only with a big if. If the reporting was accurate. Another thing I've learned is that the news very rarely is accurate. They only report a small percentage of the things that happen and only if it fits there agenda. I don't mean to sound like there is some vast conspiracy, but that is based only on my observation. To do this job well you need to be a good communicator, and have thick skin and be able to make decisions quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2006 8:43:51 PM EDT
[#33]
LOL, now THAT is rich! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2006 5:44:50 PM EDT
[#34]
WAAAAA. Go back to third grade(ie. GD) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2006 11:25:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Our Dept. patrol rifles are Ruger AC-5.56's we received through a Govt. program (1033 I believe). They are semi, 3rd burst, and full depending on where you set the lever. Each one even came with 2 30rd factory Ruger mags. I shot mine on 3rd and FA the first day it was issued to me just to test it, since then I don't think the switch has left the semi position. It was fun but a pretty big waste of ammo.
Also this has probably been addressed but individual officers cannot own/buy full auto weapons, unless they go the cilivian route and spend thousands of $'s, they can only be issued to them with the Dept. as the owner. Even if they spent the money no Dept. Head in his right mind would let them be used for official duty due to liability issues. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
