Tom Servo said:
That may be true in some cases, but many departments have fully automatic M4 and M16 rifles for SWAT teams.
I don't doubt this is the case, but I would be interested in knowing proportionally what percentage of patrol rifles for regular officers and carbines used by SWAT teams are select-fire, as knowing this for a fact would obviously change the parameters of the debate. I am guessing that the overwhelming majority of them are not select-fire.
barnbwt said:
Read over this train of thought again; there's a significant non-cosmetic difference in an AR15 and an M16, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Military equipment is military equipment because it allows military capability and tactics; that makes it functionally different from 'civilian' counterparts so limited.
My point in the specific case of an AR-15 vs. an M16 is that if the M16s have had the auto sears removed, there is no effective difference. To specifically address the NFA question regarding post-86 machine guns, it seems to be your position that if you can't have all the fun toys, nobody should be able to have all the fun toys.
I don't really have a problem with your view except that fulfilling it is utterly implausible- regardless of the relative virtue of the argument, there is no conceivable circumstance in which LE toys are going to be taken away until the NFA is repealed. I can understand and am not unsympathetic to your view as regards the NFA.
My opinion is that the NFA should be repealed, but I don't see any benefit to depriving those people and agencies who either can spend the time and money to comply with the NFA or who are not bound by parts of it just because I can't do the same.
Outside the confines of the NFA, your argument gets even more specious. What does it matter if a large LE agency runs a civilian-sourced Bell Jetranger or MD500 as opposed to a federal government-surplused UH-1? They're all helicopters. None of them are armed. There is no practical difference in capability, other than the fact that the people riding in the Jetranger are less likely to get cold.
Why does anyone care if a LE agency gets a surplused Bearcat? Someone, unsure if it was you, said it mattered because you "...can't destroy a building with an armored Crown Victoria."
That's preposterous. You can destroy a building with civilian armored Brinks truck based on a Ford Econoline just as effectively as with a military 1152-series uparmored Humvee, and likely with equally detrimental results to both vehicles as well as the building.
And again, so what? There aren't any legal restrictions on you owning any of that stuff- if you want a surplused UH-1 or Bearcat, you could probably get one if you had the moolah.
barnbwt said:
Yes, it is called individual liberty and an assumption of innocence under the law. It is based in the notion that people are generally good and do not seek to harm each other, so laws can be constructed giving individuals the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise in a court of law. Not allowing me to purchase a newly made, affordable, M16 under any circumstance as a private citizen because of what I might do (because the Registry closure made it blatantly apparent it was never about regulation/revenue but prohibition) is an assumption of guilt before a crime is even committed.
I see what you're getting at, but I don't think that the presumption of innocence under the law has anything to do with your personal feelings, nor do I think that your personal feelings should have anything to do with the law.
Again, I don't disagree with you in thinking the NFA should be repealed, but I also don't take it as a personal insult that it was enacted. By that logic, enacting a speed limit is also a blanket assumption of guilt before a crime has been committed.
barnbwt said:
Think how many officers wouldn't have to buy their own guns if it weren't for that giant boondoggle powered by dump trucks of flaming grant money?
Either you don't know much about government funding (and it seems you should given what you have intimated about your background), or you haven't thought this through very thoroughly. Policies requiring officers to buy their own guns are enacted for a lot of reasons, not all of which are budgetary. I personally would prefer to work for an agency where I could choose my own equipment to match my preference.
Beyond that, federal funding for federal surplus equipment given to local agencies as a grant has little or nothing to do with local funding for department-issued sidearms.
barnbwt said:
What we need is some mechanism by which the police can use these tactics, but at the risk of increased personal and department liability for their actions. If I can be jailed for mis-charging my time on a federal contract, a SWAT crew that raids the wrong address should have some skin in the game as well. That way, "getting home safe" also entails doing their jobs responsibly in addition to killing the bad guy before he gets a shot off.
Limited immunity protection while engaged in enhanced enforcement procedures would curtail a lot of the needless behavior, at least the profit-seeking portions.
"Wanna bring along the flash bangs?" "Nah, we don't know where everyone is in there well enough to chance it"
"Are you sure this is the right address? We don't wanna pay for another door and dead dog..."
TCB
I'd be inclined to agree with that, but I doubt I'd go as far as you're probably intending. Police departments get sued all the time, and most if not all of the suits are frivolous. I think departments should be liable for their policies if the policy is outside the bounds of law, and that officers should be liable for their actions if their actions are outside the bounds of policy, but that's essentially the system we have now.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on improving it.
