-
The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Originally posted by RazoE -
Well I could rant about this for days on end, but I'll start with this one. When people (General Pubilc i.e. civilians) stop saying they expect more out of Police Personel we can talk.
As far as the AR, I already argued this at length with other people. They are necessary tools for the job and we don't live in a perfect society. Private purchase programs were intended for agencies who couldnt afford them as an agency. If you truely believe that LEO's are civilians just like you guys, I don't understand why you would want to strip anyone of their 2A rights. Energies in this matter should be directed at the writers of the legislation and not the people that need AR's on the street.
If you truely believe an AR should be "returned" after retirement, come up with a proposal that fairly compensates the Peace Officer that has purchased, trained, used, and maintained the piece of equipment he bought for use. No matter how you argue it, it's a due process and 14th amendment clause like every CIVILIAN here argues and screams their heads about. The fact that you guys are anti LEO about it and only say that it promotes an us vs. them attitude screams nothing but hypocrisy.Last edited by Falconis; 06-13-2011, 7:22 PM.Comment
-
Think of it this way: You own a legally purchased weapon, and a government agency says you can no longer keep it, so you must destroy it, sell it, or move it out of state. Sound scary?
That's the situation with requiring retired officers to dispose of their legally purchased and registered assault weapons. I don't see how anyone on this forum could argue for that. But some do. They are their own worst enemies.The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"Comment
-
When I was an LEO, I never felt I needed anything other then my trusty 870. Until I got a MWG call one summer evening. Dude was about 80 yards out in a field with a 30-06. I'm standing there with 00 buckshot. I'll I could do was crouch behind my front tire of the patrol car and peek out. Thankfully the patrol sergeant rolled up with his AR. Us lowly peons only got shotguns, the brass got the carbines. Nowadays, everyone at my old dept. has AR's or Mini-14's. For sure all LEO's should have a dept. issued rifle to supplement the shottie.Former political prisoner who escaped on 9-24-23.Comment
-
Urban legends are a poor basis for making public policy.Comment
-
Does'nt your dept. issue you a patrol rifle?
If they do are they featurless, bb, or "normal"?
If your patrol rifle is issued why do you need a personal non-duty AW? Would'nt your non-duty personal rifle be fine`w/out receiveing privately owned RAW status?
Really if your useing it for patrol it should be the best rifle available to you from your dept.
But just because your a LEO should not make you exempt from AW laws/restictions for personal rifles.
Just my opinion...Originally Posted by Sic Boy
And I bet Jobs surfs porn. If he doesn't, I'll eat a live baby on stage at the next Apple event.Originally posted by AJAX22
Comment
-
Departments that cannot afford to issue rifles but want to let their officers have the discretion have little choice but to allow the individual purchase option. It's the same as those departments that allow officers to purchase their own sidearms. I can use the issued gun but I prefer my own gun and it saves the department money. Why not?
As for the assertion that we should not be exempt, well, we are not exempt unless we get clearance from the department and not all LEO's can get it so within the 2 classes you speak of, there is another sub- class of LEO's who actually are blessed and those who are not.
However, I doubt the non-blessed LEO's begrudge those who can get the letters from their department either. We just don't work that way.
Finally, we definitely are not exempt for "personal" rifles. I have more than 1 personal AR that is BB'ed. The exemption only applies for those rifles that a department certifies is for "duty" use. That is one reason the letter lets us buy a new rifle and register it at point of sale. We cannot convert our own personal firearm even with a letter.Last edited by Notorious; 06-14-2011, 1:48 AM.I like guns
Comment
-
it's actually "official" use. doesnt have to be for duty.Comment
-
Yes, but for budgetary reasons we don't have enough of them. Some departments that do want their officers properly equipped don't have any agency owned ones at all.
[QUOTE=Ed_Hazard;6587546If they do are they featurless, bb, or "normal"?[/QUOTE]
Normal, I think we can all agree SB-23 and AW laws in general are ridiculous. For official duty use, it's beyond moronic to use a featureless or BB'd rifle.
[QUOTE=Ed_Hazard;6587546If your patrol rifle is issued why do you need a personal non-duty AW? Would'nt your non-duty personal rifle be fine`w/out receiveing privately owned RAW status?[/QUOTE]
Goes back to the above statement about not all departments issue rifles. If they do, some officers have to turn them in at the end of shift. On days off they want to train, they need something else. Since you are eluding that LEO's and civilians are alike, why do you feel a desire to strip anyone of their 2A rights?
[QUOTE=Ed_Hazard;6587546Really if your useing it for patrol it should be the best rifle available to you from your dept.[/QUOTE]
Sure, under ideal circumstances. What ideal world do you live in?
[QUOTE=Ed_Hazard;6587546But just because your a LEO should not make you exempt from AW laws/restictions for personal rifles.
Just my opinion...[/QUOTE]
You are entitled to your opinion, but if a department can't afford rifles for their officers why shouldnt they be exempt? Do you have a fair way to compensate the officer after he retires for the purchase, maintainence, and everything else he has to do during his career with the rifle?
If you truely believe that being able to buy an AW makes you a second class citizen here in Ca, why are you not going after movie production companies or any other companies that received a AW permit from DOJ? Do you think making movies is a better excuse than an officer that should have a rifle to begin with? Do you think a person who once had a Hollywood prop rental business needs his AW permit still? Have you written anyone about that? Do you think because he's a private citizen, he should be stripped of all his property just because the person isn't doing any business anymore? Well you probably do.Comment
-
I think people just want to feel like we are all fighting the same battle here. It is not really a "well, if I can't have it, you can't have it" even though it comes across that way.
It probably holds no water but even I feel like if someone is protected form a law like the assault weapon law and they are given an exemption they are less likely to fight for me to have the same treatment since their battle has already been won. You have to admit that this is probably true in certain individual situations and at minimum you have to admit that the feeling makes sense. Couple that with the few high profile law enforcement officials who are blatantly outright anti-gun and you start to develop a stigma. Thanks to CalGuns I get to hear from officers who are not anti and that helps my opinion of LEO immensely.
However when I see some of them trying to push the "two separate classes" thing, that deposit in my emotional bank account is immediately withdrawn upon. In a world of cowboys and Indians the cowboys need not fight amongst themselves. There are plenty of Indians out there. Remember, we are cowboys too.
Officers definitely need a platform such as the AR while on duty. I agree with that completely. What I see missing is officers agreeing that a gun fight is just as dangerous and requires the same tools to get out of regardless of you being an officer. This being the case, there is no reason for officers to hold a grudge to civilians who would like the same protection as them and the same goes for civilians when it comes to officers having these tools.
If it is well known and excepted that the AR platform is an important tool for self defense we should all be able to own the same stuff without permission from mom and dad.
Can we all at least agree on that?Comment
-
To the OP, we have not been able to get letters for a couple years now. It irritates me the powers to be feel the need to eliminate that tool from our box of tricks. On my dept, they do issue Mini-14s that are assigned to each patrol car so at least we have something. For those of us who are anally retentive, we used to be able to carry our own Mini-14 rifles but they discontinued that option as well. Sadly, a sign of the times where County Counsel has more say in what we do than those of us out there doing it.The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it
Originally posted by RazoEComment
-
I don't mind the stainless mini-14 at all. They are very handy little carbines.
And the Rem870's have a nice 14" barrel so the kick generated pushes your right hand straight into your nose. Oh wait... That's a Class 3 NFA weapon but it's not owned by the officer so I guess it's okay then.I like gunsComment
Tweet
There are currently 23670 users online. 159 members and 23511 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 11:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment