U.S. Marshall loses her gun & badge

As we gunowners, civilians, are blasted day in and day out if our guns are stolen or we do something as stupid, so should the LEO's, to a greater degree. Yet you don't see the anti-gunners jumping all over the thief of any LEO guns or the use thereof in a crime as a call to ban LEO's to lose all their "gun rights".

That is what the people here are saying.

And how embarressing it must be to lose your creds.... hell, I was only a mere Airman in the Air Force and we caught hell, up to and including sometimes an Article 15, for the loss of our government ID. Yet with the LEO's and Fed's, it's "Opps".

And then to come into the conversation and say, "oh well, things happen... opps" doesn't cut it when if we do the same it spread on every front page from here to the edges of the earth as a reason that we, civilians, shouldn't own guns and more "gun control" should be enacted.

As we, civilians, are fighting to keep our semi-auto rifles and pistols and having the right to have 11+ magazines, those people that wish to take our low end weapons away are turning their heads when LEO's or Feds lose such things as fully auto weapons and credentials which I feel make everyone more in danger because we are told to "respect the authority of the LEO's and Fed's" yet we don't know if they are LEO's or Fed's or people that have stolen fully auto's and using stolen cred's.

Just because you yell and flash a badge doesn't mean that you are who you say. And we're just supposed to take everyone word on this. Read the original post and then ask youself why everyone posted in the way that they have.

Wayne
 
Between this thread and the video of the DEA agent shooting himshelf in the leg while telling students he "was the only one professional enough " to have a weapon, I'll sleep better tonight these guys are protecting us.
To wife:"By the way honey where is my extra mag pouch?" :rolleyes:
 
MrBill,
As it pertains to the loss of a firearm, I would assume that the officer will face some type disciplinary action (as it was, technically, not secured according to policies of that particular agency, I assume).
Click to expand...
That depends. AFAIK, all fed agencies dictate some manner in which a weapon must be stored if its not on the body. Just because it was in her vehicle doesn’t mean she wasn’t complying with those policies. I am sure there will be some manner of investigation, but assuming she didn’t violate any policies in how the gun was stored (no reason to think she did, is there?), I don’t think she should or will face any disciplinary actions.


I never understood why LEO's are expected to adhere to some utopian ideal of "higher standards". It's just a job. Same people that are your neighbors, brothers, sisters, etc.
Click to expand...
It’s similar to the reason you would expect a personal trainer to be physically fit. As far as I’m concerned, if you aren’t willing or able to follow the law in every aspect you aren’t fit to be an enforcer of the law.* Moreover, law enforcement is most definitely not just a job. An officer of the law is given authority over segments of society by that very segment of society, in order to ensure compliance with the laws society has enacted, among those who are unwilling or incapable of self-governance. I have not given my neighbor the teacher any authority over me. Nor would I allow my friend the banker to tell me what to do. I have however, given the law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction, the power and authority to do both (given reasonable constraints of course). There is no way that the person who is unwilling to govern himself can be entrusted with the power and authority that a free society voluntarily gives to the enforcer of the law. At every level of society we must hold all our law enforcement to a higher standard of conduct.






*Standard caveat regarding adherence to an immoral law.
 
USP45usp,
As we gunowners, civilians, are blasted day in and day out if our guns are stolen or we do something as stupid, so should the LEO's, to a greater degree. Yet you don't see the anti-gunners jumping all over the thief of any LEO guns or the use thereof in a crime as a call to ban LEO's to lose all their "gun rights".
Click to expand...
You’re right that you tend to not see law enforcement taken to task over gun mistakes that they make. I tend to think this is because a little common sense manages to come out when misfortune like this situation befalls an LEO. In my opinion, there should be the same lack of outcry if something like this happened to a non LEO.
 
In my opinion, there should be the same lack of outcry if something like this happened to a non LEO.
Click to expand...
When do you see national media coverage of a non-LEO having a firearm stolen from a locked automobile?
confused.gif
 
TBO,

The one that comes to mind was when sean penn's two guns were stolen (along with his car) but you would be right to point out that he was a celeb.

BUT, the anti-gunners are pointing right now at places like England and Australia (sorry if misspelled) with private guns being stolen and used in crimes. It won't be long before they start doing the same here as a reason for either licenses or for a complete ban on private arms (or arms that can only be stored in an approved place like a range).

I'm on my way out of the house but I bet you that with some research I could find stories about private arms being stolen and used in crime and then if I really wanted to (and could stand the smell :barf: ) I could do an indepth search on vpc and the brandy bunch page and bring up articles of the same.

As for LEO's (local or Feds) not just being a JOB because WE gave them the authority to have authority over us just isn't true. With the exception of the local Sheriff, all LEO's are appointed to their position, not elected. I guess you can make the argument that they are "indirectly" elected by being appointed by those that were elected but there is such a vast gap between being elected for the people and being appointed by the elected. LEO's do their JOBS for those that appointed them and not the JOB for the People.

The only ones that do their JOBS for the People are the Sheriffs which are elected BY the People.

Sheriffs are held to a higher standard due to their JOBS depend on the People re-electing them. All the other LEO's JOBS depend on how they do their JOBS for the people that APPOINTED them.

To say that an LEO's position is somehow exalted above any other position is somewhat absurd in my opinion (which all this is, my opinion).

Wayne
 
So we are agreed that when Joe Citizen has his firearm stolen from a locked/secured automobile, it doesn't make the national news on mulitple channels, newspapers, and web pages.
 
TBO,

No. I don't agree. Go to the brady bunches page and the vpc and see how many times LEO's are in their poop column compared to us "joes". And read up on what they think about CHL holders as being law abiding.

According to them, we should all be kissing your feet, while you should have the ability to make us do anything you wish. For you see, the LEO's of the world are right and infallable while us peons, well, we just shouldn't be able to have a gun, let alone know what one is.

Nothing here is going to make me change my mind that LEO's are perfect and should be able to do whatever and are exalted and wise and great when compared to the people in general.

This marshall should be treated the same as any "joe" on the street. She should be demoted out of the service and then sentenced to whatever jail time they would give us "peons" for the same offense. If you think otherwise, please tell us "peons" why she should hold her job and get a lesser sentence then me or any of the other non-leo types on the board.

Wayne
 
Loses her gun

Am I fixing to get in trouble! Y'all are going to be on me like a duck on a junebug but I rather tend to feel more comfortable with six foot, ex farm boy LEOs than with the fairer sex. They are smarter then we are, they live longer,
they are more thoughtful and compassionate generally, and are wonderful creatures.......But, in a knock down drag out, a gunfight, manhandling unruly drunks and dopers, you can't beat the well trained males. Ditto the Military in combat. Sorry girls, I know you all are going to nail me but its the way I see it.
 
Power

All power comes from the PEOPLE and is just delegated to elected and appointed officials to serve the PEOPLE, the source of all power, we really need to remind. in the most forceful way, the parasites who are useing our money and authority to screw us over.
Kennedy, Kerry and their buddies come to mind.
Also W and his fascist buddies.
Don :mad:
 
My job was very strict about safeguarding your weapon and shield/ID, basically no excuse for loss was acceptable....period.

However there are other LEO jobs where it is SOP to have all your gear stowed in the trunk when off/duty. I guess the rationalization is that they can be called to respond at any time. I think in small departments mnay of the Chiefs/bosses and even cops have their gear in their cars, especially if itis atake home dept. car.

Not sure if that is the case, but her agency may or may not consider this a huge deal.

Secondly, LEOs often times either after work or before work, while off-duty are forced to go places where bringing the gun is either illegal or unsafe/impractical (gym, places that serve booze, doctors office visit, schools, playing sports, off-duty employment etc.) If you can't bring the gun then the badge/ID has to should stay as well, unless you want to be the "unarmed cop" who gets held up (not good). Now sure the LEO could go home secure the gear and go back, but often times it's impractical or the situation just arises and the gear gets tucked in the trunk, under the seat in the glove box etc. Is it the best solution...no, but over the course of a 20 year career we've all done it.


How many non-LEOs have shotguns, rifles, backup pistols, loads of ammo, even vests in cars????? How many have unlocked weapons around the house?? I know many, and I don't consider them reckless. They are secured/hidden as well as possible, but they are still "available for use and therefore a BG COULD get them as well.
 
TBO,

No. I don't agree. Go to the brady bunches page and the vpc and see how many times LEO's are in their poop column compared to us "joes". And read up on what they think about CHL holders as being law abiding.
Click to expand...
Again, I digress, it's not the same. Two special interest group web pages are not the same as being on all the major television, newspaper, radio broadcast, and mainstream media web pages.
 
TheeBadOne,

You’re of course correct. What I was trying to say was that you don’t see an outcry for law enforcement as a whole to stop carrying guns when a mistake is made (not speaking of this instance, just in general) because, as any fool can plainly see, law enforcement needs guns and sometimes mistakes just happen. I think the same attitude should carry over to non law enforcement. They have the same need and just because a mistake is made doesn’t mean the need is any less.
 
Wayne,

As for LEO's (local or Feds) not just being a JOB because WE gave them the authority to have authority over us just isn't true. With the exception of the local Sheriff, all LEO's are appointed to their position, not elected. I guess you can make the argument that they are "indirectly" elected by being appointed by those that were elected but there is such a vast gap between being elected for the people and being appointed by the elected. LEO's do their JOBS for those that appointed them and not the JOB for the People.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree. The fact that somebody is appointed rather than elected has no bearing on where their authority comes from. The plain and simple truth is that all of the power and authority for every single form of law enforcement here in America has been voluntarily ceded to that agency by the citizenry. Granted, a myriad of mechanisms are used to determine who will actually wield that authority, but the fact remains that without the consent of the governed, the individual attempting to wield that power and authority does so only by custom. And as I said before, the “job” that holds the power and authority over the citizenry that law enforcement does requires that its agents hold themselves to a far higher standard of conduct than any other “job”.


To say that an LEO's position is somehow exalted above any other position is somewhat absurd in my opinion (which all this is, my opinion).
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it is “exalted” above another position. What I’m trying to say is that law enforcement must be held to a higher standard of conduct because of their chosen line of work. If you hired a personal trainer and on your first meeting in walked a 5’5” 300lbs slob, you would justifiably laugh in his face. You would, quite reasonably, require a higher standard of physical fitness from the person you are asking to get you in shape. In the same way, society must require a higher standard of conduct from those that they allow to wield power and authority over them.
 
Wayne,

This marshall should be treated the same as any "joe" on the street. She should be demoted out of the service and then sentenced to whatever jail time they would give us "peons" for the same offense.
Click to expand...
I agree. Please show me an instance where a “joe on the street” would face a fine, loss of employment, and/or jail time because a gun was stolen out of their car. To the best of my knowledge there isn’t a law on the books anywhere that would punish a “joe on the street” when the victim of theft like this Marshal was.
 
Here you go:

:eek: G.L.c. 140, § 131L. Weapons stored or kept by owner; inoperable by any person other than owner or lawfully authorized user; punishment.

(a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

(b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(c) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon and such weapon was stored or kept in a place where a person under the age of 18 who does not possess a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B may have access without committing an unforeseeable trespass, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a rifle or shotgun that is a large capacity weapon, firearm or machine gun was stored or kept in a place where a person under the age of 18 may have access, without committing an unforeseeable trespass, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years, nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(e) A violation of the provisions of this section shall be evidence of wanton or reckless conduct in any criminal or civil proceeding if a person under the age of 18 who was not a trespassor was a foreseeable trespasser acquired access to a weapon, unless such person possessed a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B and was permitted by law to possess such weapon, and such access results in the personal injury to or the death of any person.

(f) This section shall not apply to the storage or keeping of any firearm, rifle or shotgun with matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system manufactured in or prior to the year 1899, or to any replica of any such firearm, rifle or shotgun if such replica is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition.


So - loss of license, forfeiture of guns, fines and possible jail time. While a "locked container" includes a car trunk, if you have the stuff in the back of a van, station wagon or SUV - in other words, visible - you lose.
 
In the same way, society must require a higher standard of conduct from those that they allow to wield power and authority over them.
Click to expand...

How come the people who MAKE the laws aren't held to the same standard as those who must enforce the laws they make? If they were, the American Royal Family never would have gotten anywhere after Joe, and half of them would be serving multiple jail terms, if not prison sentences.
 
I suppose that these people suffer from an accute lack of forethought. In my life, I have never left my child in my car. I NEVER leave my car running, and I am especially aware of where my weapon's are at all times. The thought of one of my babies being taken by some thug who'd never oil them down or gently handle them just makes me terrified. Perhaps if these weapon's were the personal property of the LEO's, perhaps the attitudes would change.

LEO's are different than regular working folks. Guns are not just simply tools of the trade.

I tell my wife to never pull over in secluded areas for anybody. When she sees the lights, just to acknowlege them by turning on the blinkers and slowly driving somewhere (anywhere) where a scream could be easily heard.
 
Out of curiosity, where is the info the vehicle was locked up? I didn't see that in the original post. Not that it would make that big of a difference if she had left it dangling from the rear view mirror off a cord with the a/c blowing it around and the windows down as theft is theft, but if you leave something small enough of value in the open there is a good chance it will get nabbed.
 
Number 6,

Well, I was wrong, such a law does exist. Only in Massachusetts would you find a law like that. :rolleyes: I thank the dear Lord above that I don’t live in a place that is so idiotic and foolish.


I am not a lawyer, but according to the web site of one, compliance with that section of law requires that a gun must be: unloaded, and securely stored by locking it in the trunk, a locked case, or other secure container. As I said, I’m not a lawyer, but I wonder if a locked glove box would meet the requirement? Back to the issue at hand though, I have no idea if the Marshall had her gun unloaded or if it was locked in a “secure container” so I couldn’t say if she violated Massachusetts law or not. However, since she wasn’t in Massachusetts at the time of this occurrence and Florida law doesn’t have any requirements like that, she shouldn’t be held accountable to Massachusetts’s idiotic laws. Like I said, assuming she didn’t violate departmental policies, since she didn’t do anything that would cause a “joe on the street” to face jail time, fine or other punishment, she shouldn’t either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top