gun control exemption for cops

[coyotejoe]

I don't agree with the basic premise of this article but I do firmly believe that cops should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. In all of the gun control laws to limit magazine capacity and control so called "assault weapons" there is always an exemption for police. Why is that? If the basis for the law is the belief that assault weapons and hi cap mags are only used for mowing people down in mass then why exempt police? It is never the job of police to mow people down in mass. If the powers that be feel that I have no "need" for such weapons then neither do the cops.

Gun Control Needs to Start with the Police!By Marc Lombardo (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages) OpEdNews Op Eds 3/1/2013 at 15:28:31

Become a Fan   (1 fan)

Related Topic(s): Culture; Fear; Military; Police; Power; Shootings, Add TagsAdd to My Group(s)

opednews.com

  With all of the public discussion of gun violence that has come in the wake of recent mass shootings, not enough attention is being paid to a particular segment of the population that is far more likely to carry a gun than any other. This exceptionally, indeed uniquely, armed group is called: the police.

by marc falardeau


It is true that police do not commit the majority of shootings in the United States. Unfortunately, however, gun violence is an all too common form of police violence, which is itself a tragically common feature of many communities throughout the country, as the residents of Anaheim can certainly attest. The facts clearly show that police gun violence is not simply a matter of a few isolated incidents. Police officers are drastically more likely to commit a lethal shooting than the average person--approximately 20 times more likely in fact (607 fatalities from shootings in 2011 by 800,000 law enforcement officers vs. 11,000 fatalities from shootings by the US population of 310,000,000). One might think that, unfortunate as this statistic may be, it is more or less to be expected given the dangerous nature of police work. However, if rules of engagement were followed with regularity--i.e., if police were only using lethal force in situations in which they were in legitimate danger--one would assume that police officers would be fatally shot in approximately equal number to the amount of fatal shootings they commit. This was certainly not the case. In 2011, only 67 police officers were killed in the line of duty by gunshot. In other words, police were nine times more likely to fatally shoot others than they were to be killed by gunshot.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gun-Control-Needs-to-Start-by-Marc-Lombardo-130301-70.html

[yellowtail3]

It's an old idea, and a popular one - that police are spehsully qualified to carry arms, and that they're more trustworthy, and - when you get right down to it? - their lives are more valuable than ours.


I detest this view.

[Bigeasy]

Well, I don't agree with all these new attempts to limit magazine capacity, or evil "assault type weapons", and I certainly don't think a cops life is worth any more or less then any honest citizens life.  But, consider a few facts...
 
As a private citizen, you are unlikely to ever have to use a firearm in self defense.  You have no obligation to get involved in any armed situation that doesn't directly concern you personally.  Not saying it cant or wont happen, or that you shouldn't be able to use a high cap magazine / "assault type weapon" to defend yourself if it does, just stating a fact..
 
Police are obligated to get involved on a daily basis while on duty as first responders, and morally, off duty as well.  In his / her lifetime, a cop is far more likely to be in situations where deadly force may be needed to prevent a deadly crime, and save innocent lives.
 
So why would anyone not want to see police as well armed as possible to carry out their duty?  If you subscribe to the premise that all cops are "jack booted thugs", well then, so be it...  For those of a more mainstream outlook, it's just "sour grapes"...... If I cant have it, why should they?  By the way, I know a lot of cops, and the rank and file is just as supportive of the 2nd A, and of gun owners rights as any hunting / gun enthusiast on this forum.  Its when you get into upper management of some local and federal agencies that you see the politics rear its head...
 
Larry

[yellowtail3]

As a private citizen, you are unlikely to ever have to use a firearm in self defense.

True, but the same can be said to lesser degree of cops, to about same to degree re: retired cops (those NYPD pension-suckers who are exempted by NY law).

So why would anyone not want to see police as well armed as possible to carry out their duty?

I'd like them to be properly armed. They ought to stand up and loudly proclaim what you're proclaiming here. I'm not hearing it.

For those of a more mainstream outlook, it's just "sour grapes"...... If I cant have it, why should they?

Some of that. We can call it sour grapes, we can call it unfair, we can call it favortism shown by the state towards its servants, to the detriment of the citizens.

By the way, I know a lot of cops, and the rank and file is just as supportive of the 2nd A, and of gun owners rights as any hunting / gun enthusiast on this forum.

How many of them favor speshul exemptions for themselves, even once 'retired'?

[spruce]

Like Bigeasy said, the majority of the rank and file PO's are supportive of the 2nd Amendment.  If you wonder why you don't hear more from them about their support it's because they have no way to voice that opinion other than as individuals.
 
Ever see a reporter interviewing a patrolman or trooper to get his opinion on gun control?  Of course not, they always interview upper management who are almost always worried about keeping their job so they echo the views of their boss - the mayor, the governor, etc.  By the time they reach the level of Chief, Director, Commander, etc they're much more a politician than a police officer.  Sheriffs are our last best hope because they are elected and answer directly to the voters of their county.
 
Police unions are another source of anti 2nd Amendment opinions.  Not surprising, as almost all unions are "in the bag" of the democrats.  Their stance on gun control is not representative of the rank and file members of the union.
 
I think it would be good if any new gun control legislation would also apply to the police.  It would force the unions to choose between supporting it's members or supporting an anti-gun political party.
 
I don't agree that NEED should be included in any 2nd amendment argument.  If your life is in danger it shouldn't matter if your a PO or a private citizen.  Think of it this way - did the people in the Colorado movie theater or the students and teachers in Newtown have any less NEED than a police officer who is dispatched to an active shooting call??

[mechanic]

The logic eludes me, that I can buy a .500 Smith, or a 50 Beowolf, but I can't buy a Tazer.....only cops can....
 
Ben

[Ex 49'er]

If cops need a AR15 or something similar they should be able to use one from their departments arsenal. If they want to own privately then they should be held to the same standard as everyone else and no special privileges once they retire, either.

[mechanic]

I don't care to limit the cops.....I just don't want them  to limit me either.  I should be able to make my own decision about what is necessary for my defense and safety...not a group of people who know nothing about guns and nothing about me.
 
By placing limits on other people we limit ourselves.
 
Ben

[jhm]

     This is just another US and THEM arguments, I feel that the police should be armed with whatever they want and can afford, and I believe we as their employers should be able to have whatever we want and can afford, just because they are LEO shouldnt make any difference, remember they chose that profession they were not drafted into it.   Jim

[Oldshooter]

     This is just another US and THEM arguments, I feel that the police should be armed with whatever they want and can afford, and I believe we as their employers should be able to have whatever we want and can afford, just because they are LEO shouldnt make any difference, remember they chose that profession they were not drafted into it.   Jim

I agree, and one other thing, if they need "assault weapons", high capacity magazines, and such, then clearly law abiding citizens also NEED them for the same reasons!

[Couger]

I agree, and one other thing, if they need "assault weapons", high capacity magazines, and such, then clearly law abiding citizens also NEED them for the same reasons!

Indeed!  Exactly. 
 
 
The Founding Fathers wanted the CITIZENS protected from TYRRANY!  PERIOD. 
 
however ......
 
about cops ......
 
Used to be they were there "to protect and serve ....."
 
And were known as peace officers!  Not "law enforcement."
 
 
 
Why was this so-called change "necessary?" 
 
 
no doubt some kind of REAL and LITERAL legal-ease definition/explaination exists that defines and outlines the real truth to what I'm asking about/alluding too, but if we really understood the [TRUTH],  I would be surprised if the intention was to [effect] huge social-engineering changes!  But why dammit!!?? Is it "necessary" for the gubmnt-types to impose such changes on American society? 
 
If its so "obvious" alledgedly, I guess I've missed it!   

[SHOOTALL]

So when are cops obligated to defend you ? like they say when seconds count cops are mins away. A gun is what citizens need to make it until cops show up or end the problem before they arrive. No one knows what gun or magazine until the problem comes up. Some of us live where gangs with illegal full auto weapons are used to commit crimes . How can anyone hold a stright face and restrict citizens to such BS.?

[Couger]

So when are cops obligated to defend you ? .....

GOOD (and definitely "real") question! 
 
I started to say something in my post above that in some "states" and jurisdictions/departments that some police departments / "law enforcement agencies" are nothing more than corporate enforcers! (tax and revenue collectors who only kick butts and record names AFTER something BAD has already happened).
 
However I am not a 'hater' regardless of what some might think.
 
I'll admit I'm critical of "cops" and wouldn't want their necessary (at times) and thankless job,
 
but I also wish citizens like myself knew where to go to get the clear and honest truth/explainations to some of the questions asked,
 
of course without any  spin or propaganda [/i][/b][/u]

added by authorities"

whom I  no longer believe or trust*. 
 
*The lame-stream (and AWOL) media is also responsible for helping to shape my cynacism/distrust/doubt too.

[yellowtail3]

How many here think police are 'peace officers'? They've been moving away from that for a LOOONG time.
Here's an excellent article on the nation-wide militarization of our police, at multiple levels:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/police-militarization-an-interview-with-radley-balko




‎"...political factions decry police militarization when it's used against them, but tend to fall somewhere between indifferent and gleeful when it's used against people they don't like. Conservatives, remember, were furious over Waco, Ruby Ridge, and a host of BATF abuses against gun owners in the 1990s -- and rightly so. Liberals mocked them for it.Liberals were furious at the aggressive response to the occupy protests -- and rightly so. And conservatives mocked them. Liberals are rightly angry about militarized immigration raids -- conservatives don't much care. Conservatives were mad about the heavy-handed raid on the Gibson Guitar factory. Liberals blew it off. Just a few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow resurrected the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents in a segment about gun control -- and was dismissive of people who thought the government's actions were excessive. Of course, Maddow was also fuming about the treatment of Occupy protesters.Until partisans are willing to denounce excessive force when it's used against people whose politics offend them -- or at least refrain from endorsing it -- it's hard to see how there will ever be a consensus for reform."

[mcwoodduck]

I have a problem with exempting anyone from the law.
We are a nation of laws and by either not enforcing laws or exempting laws you have a super citizen and we are back to the problems that caused the French Revolution where a common man was killed for an offense but a Baron or Duke simply had their hand slapped for the same offense. 
One man, one vote, one law.  And if we can exempt a group they why can we not exempt other groups.  As one group sees that laws do not apply to them they brek and bend others and push and push bending and breaking laws at will. 

[williamlayton]

I have a strong belief that anyone should be able to level the playing field or have an edge.
Blessings

[45-70.gov]

COPS ARE GOOD


THESE GUYS ARE BAD...GO FIGURE


http://www.wnd.com/2007/09/43729/

[1marty]

In NY they've pretty much banned the AR 15. However, movies being produced in NY may from time to time use assault rifles firing blanks. This has caused a problem so a rider was put on the new assault weapons bill giving movie companies the right to use assault rifles. Seems NY thinks they are evil however, not when it comes to revenue for the state. Seems glorifying them is OK; having them is not. 

[RPRNY]

Please, for the love of God or whatever you hold dear, don't mention that unspeakably vile alleged woman, Rachel Maddow, on here. She is the apotheosis of all that is wrong in our country today and while there are some genuinely deranged people from Left and Right (as well as places undefined on our terrestrial political spectrum) on this Forum, none of them deserve to be A) accused of seeking elected office or B) subjected to the vision of the Left's Ann Coulter,  another fairly vile but at least largely insincere harpy.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[Oldshooter]

In NY they've pretty much banned the AR 15. However, movies being produced in NY may from time to time use assault rifles firing blanks. This has caused a problem so a rider was put on the new assault weapons bill giving movie companies the right to use assault rifles. Seems NY thinks they are evil however, not when it comes to revenue for the state. Seems glorifying them is OK; having them is not.

Excellent point, same thing goes for hollywierd californication.

[45-70.gov]

i  sold a handgun to a cop  a few years  back
he was head of the swat team...and a friend of  mine


he filled out his  4473 and was ready to take his gun
you should have seen the look on his face when i told  him to come back in  3 days 
[can't say i didn't enjoy that......tho he was a friend]

[RIF]

These subjective laws that enforce strict laws governing the use, even the total disbarment of one segment of the law abiding citizenry of firearms, and the nullification of those same laws for another law abiding segment of citizenry is not the upholding of the Constitution as we know it.  It is making one citizen more of a citizen than another.  This is not an American precept at all, but rather anti American.  I have never seen a cop complain about it that much though.  In my county, only law enforcement can legally concealed carry, unless you are the mayors friend, or know an assemblymen, or the wife of a sheriffs deputy. 
It is an unfair and unjust system.  Someday it will turn and bite those that are so wise.  This has ALWAYS played out in history.  The upholders of unjust laws finally have the same measure of justice handed back to them...and they don't like it one bit.  There is no reason to think that it will not again. 
What we need are true leaders that care more about the citizenry they are sworn and paid well to protect and serve.  What we have is status quo...each year it devolves further down the road of "we just can't trust them enough to let them." 
 
I am not anti cop at all.  I am anti current American idea of leadership.  We just do not have any leadership at all, from the father all the way up to the highest level of government. 

[dakotashooter2]

While the police do put their lives on the line they have also become dependent on hi cap mags to make up for their poor shooting skills. That leads to spray and pray which is not a good thing in a public venue.
 And how many times a year do we hear of sutuations where they use overkill..........
 
Your average cop probably doesn't need a high cap mag but special units probably can get greater benefit from them........
 
What does bother me  most about the police exemption is that it allows for retired police officers to be exempt from regulation but DOES NOT afford ex military that same exemption............................How assinine is that...........

[mcwoodduck]

While the police do put their lives on the line they have also become dependent on hi cap mags to make up for their poor shooting skills. That leads to spray and pray which is not a good thing in a public venue.
 And how many times a year do we hear of sutuations where they use overkill..........
 
Your average cop probably doesn't need a high cap mag but special units probably can get greater benefit from them........
 
What does bother me  most about the police exemption is that it allows for retired police officers to be exempt from regulation but DOES NOT afford ex military that same exemption............................How assinine is that...........

Citizens are citizens.  If the police need the high cap mags for work then the job should provide them.  Once they leave the job the department should take the high cap mags back as they are no longer on the job.
Either the law applies to everyone or we are going to have super citizens that can ignore laws.

[Oldshooter]

Yea, like what's his name in calif. wasn't he x cop?

[SHOOTALL]

When there start to be exemptions then it would seem the tyrant is starting to show ?

[45-70.gov]

DREW PETERSON

[mcwoodduck]

Yea, like what's his name in calif. wasn't he x cop?

Do you mean Dorner the idiot that killed the police officer that represented him, daughter and fiance then shot it out with Corona PD and riverside Sheriffs killing one, then fought with San Bernardino Sherifs Department killing another?

[Ranger99]

yt3's post, i think #14,
the photo of the swat team
or whatever they are.
they should have uniforms with
the department they work for
embroidered or printed or something
that says exactly and specifically what
agency they work for. i can buy every piece
of clothing and gear they're wearing myself,
and i don't work for law enforcement.
they need to look like policemen.
if that bunch kicked my door by mistake,
someone would leave in a bag.
(and a lot of doors get kicked by mistake)

[Oldshooter]

Yea, like what's his name in calif. wasn't he x cop?

Do you mean Dorner the idiot that killed the police officer that represented him, daughter and fiance then shot it out with Corona PD and riverside Sheriffs killing one, then fought with San Bernardino Sherifs Department killing another?

Yea, that guy! Prolly no more like him out there right?