Special Citizens

I

I'vebeenduped

New member
I am hoping to get a discussion on this. I do not mean to offend anyone or stir up angst. I would love to know if my thoughts are wrong and the reasons why. I just feel that this needs attention. Especially so since manufacturers are starting to draw the lines in the sand as well.

All men are created equal;

With the states that are doing away with the RKBA, they are allowing a special class of citizens to own the very same arms that are being made illegal. While I have no problem with nor history against any police officers, I grew up in the era where we were raised to have a profound respect of them, I do have a problem with them being able to own them in their personal inventory if they are illegal to the general public. I feel it should be the property of the state and they should be the caretakers of said weapons. The states should purchase these, maintain these, and issue them as needed. I understand the special circumstances of an individual who may be on a SWAT team and that they may need to carry the dreaded black rifle in their trunk. Other that truly special circumstances, I feel that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Thoughts?
 
I once considered equal protection under the "Law". I concluded that it was dependent on how much "Law" you can afford. That's when I decided to handle matters through attorneys, as appropriate.
That is my advice.
My question for today is: When public officials ramrod bad laws in the dark of night, with waivers and exceptions such as the Safe act, why can't they be sued for malfeasance?
 
I agree, delarosadavid.

As much as police culture has been militarized, they are still civilians and still subject to the law of the land. (Unlike actual members of the armed forces, who are subject to the UCMJ and are tried in a different court system.)

The idea that there should be one set of laws for some civilians and a different one for others should be abhorrent. It's especially egregious if less severe restrictions are put in place for ex-policemen, as some states are proposing. [TINFOIL HAT] One effect might be to create, in effect, a kind of "reserve" of former LEOs, should they be needed, for example, to curb civil unrest. Not sure I like that idea.[/TINFOIL HAT]
 
It would be helpful to see the verbage you are referring to in these locations that spell out who can own what. Are we talking about full time employed officers or retired?

Officers should always be ahead of the bad guy when it comes to protection so they should have superior firearms at work. Some agencies supply them while others let you purchase one if you want to carry it (semi-auto).

If you lock people up for 25 to 30 years in the county you live in and then retire I don't think you want to be walking around unarmed.
 
Last edited:
Punisher, no one is suggesting that police officers shouldn't be able to protect themselves. The point is that many of the proposed bans on so-called "assault weapons" make exceptions for current and former LEOs, which would create a double standard that's yet another reason why these bans are utterly wrongheaded in the first place.

According to FactCheck.org, Sen. Feinstein's bill would exempt "...from the prohibition against having an assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine... “a qualified law enforcement officer” (whether on or off duty, and sometimes even if retired)..."

I think delarosadavid's point that this would create two classes of citizens, especially with regard to retired officers, is a good one.
 
Last edited:
Something I've been saying for quite awhile. There is no better place to draw a circle around for the "Common use for lawful purpose" test than a police car.
 
LEOSA is another example of what you are talking about. LEO, active or retired, are entitled to carry almost anywhere and in any state in this country "just because" they are law enforcement.

LEOSA U.S. Code
 
Last edited:
My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
Don't get me wrong, I am as upset and angry as anyone over the NY Safe act and other laws like it, I have and continue to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to let my representatives know how I feel and who will and won't get my vote for re election.
 
We don't want to take away his gun. We just don't want him taking away OURS. We shouldn't be outgunned by him or the criminals anymore than he should be outgunned by the criminals.
 
My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
Don't get me wrong, I am as upset and angry as anyone over the NY Safe act and other laws like it, I have and continue to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to let my representatives know how I feel and who will and won't get my vote for re election.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, your son made the decision to do this...

I do not feel like his voluntary paid service entitles him to be above the law that governs the folks that pay his salary and supports his family (your grandchildren).
 
My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long.


I understand this. My questions to this are; What about the lawyers that help to prosecute them? If the police can maintain arms after assisting the prosecution, what about the prosecuting attorneys? Shouldn't they then be able to maintain firearms? Since we are now going down this route, what about any potential witnesses? Shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves since they are obvious targets to retaliation? Now we have a jury to contend with. Shouldn't our peers, who take part in the prosecuting process be able to defend themselves? Certainly, even defense attorneys, who were deemed by their client to not be aggressive or protective enough have been targets of retaliation. I hate to coin too many phrases, but slippery slope is pretty appropriate here.

Again, I cannot say this enough; I support our police forces. I teach my son to wave whenever he sees one driving down our street. I encourage him to speak to any that he sees in parking lots and they normally turn on the lights and sirens for him. He loves them! I don't, however, think that they should be given special status.
 
Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
Click to expand...

For the same reason you would disarm the rest of the law abiding US citizens that also deserve to be able to protect themselves just as much against the felons who will pray on them even more so than on the police.

It's a bad idea no matter who you apply it too. And I have to agree with delarosadavid, you can't make a special class that gets to keep guns while the rest are prohibited. That is simply discrimination.
 
It should not be forgotten that ordinary citizens who are willing to testify against criminals are in a similar situation as LEOs who testify.

Yet those same ordinary citizens wouldn't be allowed to protect themselves in many (most?) jurisdictions.

This leads to thoughtful citizens being unwilling to turn in the bad guys which leads to general destruction of law and order.

This is not a new problem. It was notable in the 1920's in Chicago and NY when the word "gangster" was invented. And wasn't it Chicago that popularized the driveby shooting????
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
JimDandy said:
We don't want to take away his gun. We just don't want him taking away OURS. We shouldn't be outgunned by him or the criminals anymore than he should be outgunned by the criminals.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

It's not "Why CAN he?" it's "Why CAN'T we?"
Click to expand...
Can I get an AMEN?!? The two posts above are dead on.

delarosadavid said:
I understand this. My questions to this are; What about the lawyers that help to prosecute them? If the police can maintain arms after assisting the prosecution, what about the prosecuting attorneys? Shouldn't they then be able to maintain firearms? Since we are now going down this route, what about any potential witnesses? Shouldn't they be allowed to protect themselves since they are obvious targets to retaliation? Now we have a jury to contend with. Shouldn't our peers, who take part in the prosecuting process be able to defend themselves? Certainly, even defense attorneys, who were deemed by their client to not be aggressive or protective enough have been targets of retaliation. I hate to coin too many phrases, but slippery slope is pretty appropriate here.
Click to expand...
Your concerns are not lost on the legal community, at least in my state. Around here, most of the lawyers involved in the criminal justice system (on either side of the fence) have their CHCLs. Unfortunately, we generally cannot carry in courthouses. Prosecutors can get special permission to carry, but I know of no defense attorney that has gotten permission to carry into the courthouse. What I tell my officers is: You may be the guy that put him in jail, but I'm the guy telling the judge that he needs to stay there for six more months.
 
“Personal Defense Weapons”

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-buys-7000-full-auto-assault-rifles-calls-them-personal-defense-weapons

I am not trying to re-direct this thread and I know that this article has been posted and discussed to no end. Does anyone think that there is any additional meaning to "Personal" in the above link? Is it possible that these officers could potentially be able to take these weapons home with them? It seems that these are fully automatic and not only self-loading.

I certainly don't mean to go all "conspiracy theorist" here although Mel Gibson had it right when he said, "Coffee is our friend." (Can't stand the man, love the actor)

It just seems as though the tide is being steadily tipped against us into that of a police state. It may very well be that there is no intention of this being put in to play right now but the more it is facilitated, the more tempting of an offer it might become in the future. Arm the police, even in their personal residences, disarm the people, and eliminate the threat of any resistance to any future repugnant proposals. This is just a dangerous path. Again, I can't stress this enough, I like to believe that it is not intentional at this stage. It is just like wandering down a different path very slowly.
 
jimdandy said it very well.

LEO'S should have the right to carry the best firearms available, with the highest capacity available.. and since we face the same threats in society we should have that same right.

this push for manufacturers to support us by not selling to anyone what has been deemed illegal for civilians is a good idea in my opinion. this will not support a "special class" and with enough support perhaps our lawmakers will come to realize that they have to "stop the madness" and stop violating the Constitution!
 
LEO's rights are exactly the same as the rest of us. Period. They do not have any rights that the rest of us do not.

What to do have is certain privledges, and certain authority that the rest of us do not have. Because of their job.

Didn't you hear the VP the other day? "NO ONE needs 30 rnds!" TO me, that's clear, no one means no one. It does not mean no one except the police!

Of course, the VP is wrong, some people do need 30 rnds. But, what people need has no place in the discussion. I can find no place in our legal system that gives politicians the legal ability to determine, and restrict people to what they need.....

They do it, for certain things, and have done it for a long time, but that fact neither makes it legal, nor proper.

The other flaw in the gun control argument is the simple difference between ownership and illegal use. They all constantly refuse to see that. TO them, there is no valid legal use (their opinion) therefore, ownership is the guaranteed precursor to illegal use.

We have, and have had laws against shooting people for fun or profit since the founding of our nation (and before..), they do not stop people from shooting people. The do give us something to arrest them for, but they do not stop them. The law may deter many, but it stops no one who is determined to break the law.

Make no mistake, we are being discriminated against. Not becuase of the color of our skin, or our age, gender, religion, or even sexual identity, but because of the property we own. Or wish to own.

Ban the ARs! Buy a shotgun! That's what I hear them say. Of course, most of the people I hear saying that publically have paid armed security protecting their precious selves and families 24/7. And those people, in uniform, or out, paid to be the protectors, DO have ARs, and much, much more.

One law for them, another for us? How is that not Jim Crow in a different suit?
 
Seems to me like LEOSA violates the Title of Nobility Clause of the Constitution (it's in Article 1 Section 9) and probably the 14th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top