LE Only Equipment

Seems to me like arguing that LEOs should behave like the LEOs in other countries, is the same as saying that we should all act like those other countries: ie- no (or few) guns! .. Ridiculous.


While LEOs are certainly expected to turn in any LE only gear they have been issued, I doubt very many small town PDs and SDs are going to keep track of how many times Officer Gunnut asked the sherrif to sign off on a mag purchase.

Let me ask this, if I qualify with 5 weapons ( I did), would I not be within legal limits to buy LE mags for all of those weapons? Obstensibly for duty use only, to include training. My impression is that it would be legal.
 
Are cops in other countries able to choose between five different weapons? I think not. Take you're 10 shooter and be happy with it.
 
Benton Quest and Rob,

That wasn't my argument. That was a question. I am curious if the US is more different or more the same as other countries.

If emulation of foreign countries' gun laws are supposed to bring nirvana, then emulation of their law enforcement practices might become a goal too.

I remember that some kid in TX used his dad's duty AR-15 to kill someone(s). What if that kid had killed as many as in the Columbine incident? Could it not bring on a ban on bringing some types of weapons home?
 
Prichard,
Last I spoke with him (Christmas Eve) the regular firearms officers (not all constables are armed) had S&W Model 10 revolvers.

The special units had MP5s and a different handgun and for the life of me I can't recall what it is.

The interesting thing is that while they don't normally carry firearms (I'd feel like an idiot walking around with an empty holster) they have much greater latitude then American peace officers to use physical force on a subject. Duncan tells me some funny stories about transitioning to the ASP baton.
Jeff
 
Hmmm ... another thread testing the 'brotherhood' of pro-RKBA LEO's and civilians. (and, let's not debate 'civilian's again ...)

Benton, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I mean that sincerely. I appreciate your honesty. I was with you all the way until you commented 'Take your 10 shooter and be happy with it.'

Well, I refuse to be 'happy with it'. Better than nothing? You bet. But, I think we all agree this is not a matter of Bill and his boys granting us the right to have an efficient tool for self defense. Or, self government, for that matter.

This whole hi-cap magazine argument really frys me. It is arcane enough that the average citizen's eyes glaze over at the mention of this restriction. And, the discussion immediately turns to why 'anyone would need more than 10 rounds?'. This one debate probably ended a recent business association / friendship for me (however, I don't care, because it proved the 'friend' to be a dupe, IMHO).

If no one NEEDS more than 10 rounds, then let's make 'em all illegal. LEO's and the military won't go for that, nor should they. So, if they need 'em, why don't honest civilians need 'em - because we're better shots? Our lives aren't worth as much? Or, it's acceptable to sacrifice us so a few more bad guys can be incarcerated longer? (that is the real answer, IMHO)

I know none of you believe this crap. But, this particular restriction is one of the best examples of how poorly the 2nd amendment has been interpreted. I'm currently reading 'That Every Man be Armed' by Stephen Halbrook. I recommend it highly to all TFL members if you haven't read it. Difficult read, but a fascinating look at the real history and purpose of this freedom.

I realize this thread originally started as more of a techical look at the subject. But, IMHO this is a very important issue now. It is a good example of the 'camel's nose' getting into the tent, as well as the incrementalism that is strangling this freedom.

I certainly would never ask any LEO to be less well armed off duty as on duty. And, I honestly doubt that an 11th, 12th, etc. round is going to make the difference in my continued life, or the lives of my family. But it might. And, most importantly, I do hope our LEO friends will also stand by civilians, and continue pointing out the illogic of this restriction, as well as its conflict with each citizen's natural right to self defense and democratic government.

I do hope I see fewer and fewer 'LEO organizations', unions, etc. supporting this kind of foolishness. They're ultimately helping to damage our country, our freedoms and their relationship with civilians.

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff,

Sorry to start a firestorm, but the 10 round mag statement was a joke. I think the 10 round cap law is ludicrous. I was joking with Rob for qualifying with 5 guns. Believe me, I'm on your side. I feel you should be just as well armed as anyone else.

I'm with ya man...calm down.

I just think it's a little ludicrous to ask leo's to "turn in" their mags at each shift. This is getting rather silly.....

On a side note....a couple of nights ago I went to see Bob Dylan and Paul Simon in concert....and when I went, I took my county issued (paid for with DEA funding) 10x50 Baush & Lomb Binoculars. Now, if that wasn't an abuse of power, I don't know what is...............(But I was carrying a low-capacity semi-auto when I went)
 
Well if we are talking LE corruption, then I took two driving tests for drivers licenses without driving ;) . No DEA funding though, that would really be unethical :) .

[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited July 12, 1999).]
 
WHAT DO YA MEAN, CALM DOWN!!!! I AM CALM! ;)

So, another guy pulling our leg, eh? This is serious stuff, don't ya know. ;)

Alright, Benton. Just don't make a mistake and take a Rem 700 with a 24x scope to your next concert ... ;)

Have a great night.
 
My department issues the Glock 23 and 3 hi-cap mags as a duty weapon and requires us to be armed at all times. We can carry just about whatever we want off duty as long as we qualify with it. My Chief would gladly sign for me to get more hi caps for my issue glock, but not for anything else. I have only bought 10 rounders for extra mags because I don't really want to bother the Chief and I think that 10 vs. 13 rounds is not that big a deal. All my off duty guns happen to be low capacity. I have a new Beretta 96G Brigadier Elite on lay-a-way right now. It only holds 10 rounds no matter what the owner does for a living. I also think that the hi-cap ban and so called assault weapons ban are a load of crap!
 
I'd say, "Take advantage of it and practice peaceful civil disobedience."

To me, it's a dividing argument.

If a ban is to be placed, contrary to our 2nd Amendment right, let it be a blanket ban across the citizenship, law enforcement, and military. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

But, as we see, social stratification takes place when such laws are selective of whom they effect, even when those effected are innocent of malice or agenda. (i.e. LEOs)

------------------
John/az

"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!

Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)

Ants UNITE!
 
Wait a minute, while the magazine capacity law is most certainly unfair, what is restricting the average person from going out and buying pre ban high caps? True they are high priced, but they are still around to be purchased. Last time I was at a gun show, a vendor had a box full of pre ban mags for my SIG 229 (and others) both new and used. Now if I wanted to pay between $50 and $75 for them I could have. It seems that this arguent can be broken down to one of economics. LE high caps sell for around $30 (for Glock and SIG). Yeah it sucks, but there you have it.
 
Phillip, you are technically correct - it is currently an economic issue, at first blush. But, many high quality, hi-cap mag's are becoming more and more difficult to find. This will get much worse.

The Dishonorable Diane Feinstein and others of her ilk have pushed a ban on future transfers of hi-cap magazines. And, they haven't lost by much, as I recall. Such bans would have prevented any transfer of hi-cap mag's, whether by sales, inheritance, gift or whatever. You couldn't even give them to your kids. (BTW, I asked an ATF agent how they would ever administer such a law. He had no idea. The only way I can imagine would be to require registration of every hi-cap mag, with serial numbers.)

Besides ... why would anyone believe the number '10' is magic? Someday the question will likely be 'why does anyone need more than 5 rounds', and on and on.

No, this is ultimately more than just an economic issue. The situation will continue to decline until more and more honest citizens say 'enough'. Not only 'this far and no farther', but rather that it is time to end illogical bans on firearms and components that are clearly constitutionally protected in the free United States of America.

OK ... I'm calm here ... ;)
 
Benton,

I work both plain clothes and Uniform, with a different gun preferred for each (both Glocks, though). We also have to qualify with any back up guns that may be carried while on duty (couple more Glocks). It is pretty easy to get to 5 guns.



------------------
-Essayons
 
Okay, lemme see if I've got this right. It's all right for me to carry my Department issued Glock 22 with its high capacity magazines while on duty, but when off duty, I should either load it with politically correct 10 rd magazines, or put that pistol away, and carry my Colt Commander with its 8 rd mags? So, I'm standing in line at my local stop-n-rob and a member of one of our youth social organizations is transactingt business with a stolen shotgun, and the customer behind me says, "hey, you're a cop; do something!" I'm less likely to need a high capacity magazine than when I'm on duty?
For the record, my only complaint about the ammunition capacity limit is that it is stupid, unnecessary, and Consititutinally illegal. I not only object to the requirement that makes it difficult for LEOs to obtain them, but the ban for private citizens. As an LEO, I may have more of an OBLIGATION to be armed that a private citizen, but I have no more RIGHT to be armed that a private citizen. I feel just as well armed with my Colt 45 auto or an HK P7M8 as I would with my Glock 22 w/hi-caps. In fact, when I go off duty and take off the G22, I usually strap on a Glock 23, and I only have "PC" 10 rd mags for it. My sheriff won't sign the letters for personally owned hi-cap mags, but he'll buy us all we need and issue them to us. He just wants to the Department to own anything he has to sign a letter for.
 
Rob,

Once again, I was just joking with you. I am issued two different Glocks (Mod 35 and 22), but sometimes carry my Sig P226 off-duty. Or sometimes my nicely tuned 1911. Or if space is a concern, a S & W 60...or sometimes a PPK/s.

I FEEL YOUR PAIN!
 
The whole point is that it is a dividing issue. It contributes directly, and IMHO significantly, to the increased "Us vs Them" mentality between LEOs and gun owners, specifically.

In fact, it is rather silly to expect LEOs to turn in their goodies at the end of the shift. But if you go back into "civilian" mode when you go home, then you have become a civilian, for all intents and purposes. That may be a department-specific issue, however, in the current situation.

As for "profitting" from possession of hi-caps while off duty, if LEOs can get them, brand new, high quality (reliable), and relatively cheap, then that is profitting. A bonus benefit conferred on LEOs only.

I certainly don't want essential equipment taken out of Law Enforcement for the sake of "fairness". I want LEOs to have all the stuff they need: suppressed MP5s, hi-caps, the whole bit, and I want them to use use that stuff, too, when appropriate (see numerous other threads).

But, for the sake of "fairness", I want everybody to have that stuff. Hell yes, I'm jealous!

It's not a problem with individual LEOs, or even departments. It's a problem with the laws, and their effect on perceptions of "special status".

We all seem to be pretty much in agreement, therefore I have retracted my formal complaint to BQ's department for "the unauthorized use of county equipment for the visual enhancement of a perforoming artist, while not on duty". I know you're much relieved. :)

-boing



[This message has been edited by boing (edited July 13, 1999).]
 
Benton Quest: "....Who cares?" ???????

Don't take offense, because you must not have thought it through completely, but that has to be one of the silliest things ever uttered on TFL. Obviously, everyone who is not an LEO cares greatly. And so would you, were you not in the position you are.

Sounds like wanting something someone else has? DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In my view, there are few things more sinister than a law that makes ANY distinction between what an LEO and non-LEO can use for personal use (yeah, I know the AR in your living room is for duty only, right. And if some maniac burst through your door shooting, you'd leave it and go get your personal post-ban AR, huh?). There is nothing that drives a larger wedge between LEOs and non than this. It is a very slippery slope once this has started (and it obviously has).

Tell me WHY it seems stupid to turn in your stuff at the end of each shift? Is is partly because you would PREFER/LIKE to keep them for your personal use? I would venture to guess that it is. The point is, IF you can take the stuff home, then you are somehow in a special class, better than "average citizens"; more trustworthy; in short, nobility. That is 100% contrary to what our country is all about. "All men are created equal", remember?

If the public starts accepting the LEO/non distinction, there is a big danger there, because eventually the LEOS/Military/ruling class will have weapons that so far outclass the rest of us (due to inevitably increasing restrictions), we'll have no chance in a fight. And that's what the RKBA is all about - fighting. Believe me, if and when the true purpose of the RKBA is needed, you can bet the despotic regime will have the majority of mercenaries at their disposal, mercenaries meaning here literally anyone who is paid to fight - police and military.

Look, here is the real deal - this will definitely answer your question. The reason that this is such a big deal is this: If you and all other LEOs DID have to check your "non-civilian" stuff at the end of each day, then this would stick in your craw. It would annoy you (you have admitted you think it is silly). As a result, you will get off your collective duffs and earnestly JOIN the fight to eliminate the ridiculous distinctions outright. If you don't have to follow the silliness, then who cares, it's no skin off your back. You still get the goodies. So as a result, the entire RKBA/freedom movement is undercut by the vast majority of LEOs, or at least they would sit on the fence and not advocate either side fiercely. It's just human nature to not take action when something doesn't affect you. That's why, in my mind, the Lautenberg gun ban, which applied equally to all persons, LEOs or not, for a simple misdemeanor, will be in the final analysis, probably an extremely GOOD thing for RKBA, because it shows LEOs that the laws are totally out of control, and our freedoms must be restored. Talk to a cop who got put on a desk job or fired just because of a misdemeanor tiff with the ol lady and a shove. They're pissed - and rightfully so. That got those folks on the bandwagon. And your fellow co-workers need to get on, too. That's why this is such an important issue. I salute Rob for his strength and principles, but look, even he admits he may have succumbed to weakness if he hadn't been so fortunate. That's human nature. Our numbers will be fortified by the ranks of LEOs once the distinctions start to fall. And you will realize of course that every LEO added to RKBA support has a synergistic effect - greater than the parts, because the general public (even the antis) holds police in high esteem, and values the collective opinions about the issues. The public does to some extent correctly perceive gun "problems" to be crime problems, with which LEOs obviously deal (they just don't realize it's not more gun restrictions that will help, but locking away offenders). So they look to the opinion of LEOs. That's why Clinton paraded the FOP leaders' support of his gun proposals, which of course did not refect the rank and file.

OK, I'm calmer now, after reading some of your subsequent posts. I can say that I certainly don't blame you or any LEO for taking advantage - I certainly would - I guess I'm not as principled as Rob. But I wouldn't like the distinction. I agree with Boing though that you are "profiting" from the goodies by having them at all, and especially in your living room.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited July 13, 1999).]
 
If anybody really wants to be jealous, I get a free car that I can drive for my own personal use anytime on duty and off with free gas, oil changes, tires, etc. Now that is a real benefit. I get to park it free at any city meter and all kinds of other cool stuff. My point is, work to change the law or if you are that jealous, go out try to become a cop. It's not as easy as you think. The first time I got hired, there were 2,000 of us competing for 19 jobs. The next time, it was only 75 for 3 jobs but we were all already police looking for a leteral transfer. The fact is, my G23 with hicaps is no more effective a self defense weapon than yours with 10 rounders. We both agree the laws suck, police like me will do everything we can to overturn it and prevent more gun laws. Don't take out your anger at an unfair system out on street police officers. We had nothing to do with that law and if it is enforced, it is by the ATF, not by your local boys in blue (or brown.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top