Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[Josh3239]

Every citizen in this country should have the right to an automatic weapon and be able to use it for any lawful purpose. Police are citizens and a law enforcement job is a lawful purpose. I hope that was clear enough.

[artoaster]

No. They can train semi-auto and do anything they need to do.

The day the cops need to fill a fire zone with bullets is the day they are no longer police but a domestic enemy.

[Hoop]

I want to hear more from the Calgunner who said that one guy (presumably him) could have stopped the North Hollywood shootout singlehandedly with a deer rifle from high ground.

I am drowning in all the tactical expertise here, even though it is mostly based on movies and video games.

I don't want to deny patrol guys the tools they need, nor do I want to deny Joe Citizen his AR, even if he has no real use for it other than photo shoots and impressing his girlfriend and buddies with it during get togethers.

I agree although the current problem is that Joe Citizen's AR is on the political chopping block while the cops are seemingly stocking up on military hardware. Nothing good can come of this.

[Hoop]

Every citizen in this country should have the right to an automatic weapon and be able to use it for any lawful purpose. Police are citizens and a law enforcement job is a lawful purpose. I hope that was clear enough.

^^^^
Ditto!

[Meety Peety]

Of course they need select fire.. do you have any idea how long it takes to fire 100+ rounds into a blue Toyota Tacoma? Come on guy, these officers are paid by the hour. Shame on you for wanting to slow them down and thus spend more of our tax dollars

All kidding aside though, I'm of the mindset that they should be limited to what we are limited to. If we have restrictions, so should they. I believe they should remove the restrictions we currently have, and therefor allow select fire to all. Until then, Officers in CA should be required to use bullet buttons and 10 round magazines. Maybe then someone would be forced to step up and teach them how to shoot.

[cannon]

I want to hear more from the Calgunner who said that one guy (presumably him) could have stopped the North Hollywood shootout singlehandedly with a deer rifle from high ground.

Actually a true statement. Figure you have your basic All American bolt action 30 06 deer rifle.

The round will go through the front and probably out the back of the bullet proof vest clad villain. A 30 06 will go through a phone pole with no problem. It's a very powerful round.

Just climb up on your roof get the cross hairs on the bad guys 10 ring and he'll be down and out.

[KABA556]

I know of the old ladies delivering news papers and the guy out surfing that got shot without warning by LAPD for minding their own business. If LAPD had machine guns they might even have been able to kill them

Are you saying there were 2 others?

LAPD rammed a pickup truck and opened fire with pistols.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/surfer-shot-at-amid-former-lapd-cop-hunt-files-lawsuit/

I believe there were several others, I'll do some digging via news sources...

[KABA556]

I didn't hear about the "surfer"... Was he really out surfing? Or was that the guy who Torrance shot in the Honda Ridgeline.....

KABA556 also believes the unreasonable truck shootings were with "AR's" However as far as I know they were 9mm Beretta's....

Notice I said "unreasonable"

Why not say "CRIMINAL" instead of "unreasonable" because it was clearly criminal.


The truck shootings were CRIMINAL.

[Artema]

This about it this way, if some "normal" type of crime (meaning not in the protection of the countries waters) is committed in or near a marina/bay, does it seem like a good way to spend federal money to have coast guard personel and material to police those types of things? The individuals are going to go to the county facilities anyways, why not cut out the middle men and have the county enforce in those areas.

Many Sheriffs Departments have river patrols within the jurisdiction and Fish and Game patrol ocean waters near the shore to ensure commercial and recreational fisherman abide by state laws, it's essentially the same thing.

I wasn't talking about practicality. I was wondering about jurisdictional concerns, as I mentioned. I guess it is good to go as it is common practice. Not that common practice equals lawful, but that's what I'm wondering.

[five.five-six]

I didn't hear about the "surfer"... Was he really out surfing? Or was that the guy who Torrance shot in the Honda Ridgeline.....

KABA556 also believes the unreasonable truck shootings were with "AR's" However as far as I know they were 9mm Beretta's....

Notice I said "unreasonable"

Surfing, fishing, I don't remember...just going about his business. I do remember he got his truck ramed by PD and windshild shot out. If they had machine guns they probably could have killed him is all I am saying.

[SVT-40]

Surfing, fishing, I don't remember...just going about his business. I do remember he got his truck ramed by PD and windshild shot out. If they had machine guns they probably could have killed him is all I am saying.

That was the Torrance officers then... As I said in the original thread, it will be hard for the officers to prove that their actions were reasonable based on the situation....

The machine gun comparison is not a real proper comparison though, as they were not used, and it's only conjecture.

Just like it would be improper to say something like "If it HAD been Dornier, it would have been a proper use of force"....

[1CavScout]

Actually I'll say it...


One incident in 50 years of policing in LA and they want to issue AR-15s and M4s to the basic LAPD patrolmen?

Suspects are confronted all the time that are armed with rifles. I had an incident where a suspect was on the roof of his house with a rifle, and was taking shots at citizens. The suspect was taken out with a head shot from an AR at about 200 yards. It took a SWAT sniper in a helicopter about an hour to get on scene.

Before we were issued AR's, I carried a long barrel shotgun and slugs so I would have a weapon with some standoff capability. The AR does a much better job in this role.

[five.five-six]

That was the Torrance officers then... As I said in the original thread, it will be hard for the officers to prove that their actions were reasonable based on the situation....

The machine gun comparison is not a real proper comparison though, as they were not used, and it's only conjecture.

Just like it would be improper to say something like "If it HAD been Dornier, it would have been a proper use of force"....

[SactoDoug]

Just about any rifle round larger than a .22 will go right through body armor. If LE had any rifle during the North Hollywood bank robbery then it would have been over a lot sooner. Body armor is most effective against pistols and shotguns.

Today I see an AR in post patrol cars. Even so, the law makers felt the need to outlaw body armor. That was unnecessary and IMO puts people in danger that would have otherwise been safer if they had the ability to buy body armor. A restaurant manager in a bad neighborhood might want to put on a vest as he takes thousands of dollars in cash to the bank deposit box. That option is no longer legal.

[Drew Eckhardt]

Do law enforcement agents need select fire weapons?

Since half the murders committed with legally owned machineguns in America since 1934 have been committed by police officers (the corrupt Ohio officer who used his MAC10 to murder an informant in 1989) law enforcement should have the same restrictions that apply to civilians.

That could be no restrictions for LE or the rest of us as suggested by a literal reading of the second amendment, or the current restrictions the rest of us have nationally (no machine guns made after 1986) and at the state level (no automatic weapons in California).