Retired Cops not subject to restrictions on guns?

[ArmyVet88]

Class-III license will get you anything you want.

I included retired military so what's your point ?

I find it highly unlikely that there's many civilians that have the training I'm talking about in a greater degree than law enforcement and at least some military.

Because I'm not talking about firearms training per se, the training I'm talking about is dealing with situations.

And I'm not arguing in favor of restricting civilians, I'm pointing out the rationality of the other side of the issue which is relying on the training and experience of retired and off-duty cops and others who have a lot of experience.

Tom hits it right on the button. Situational training is very different then your best hunter. Knowing how to properly clear rooms and knowing the TTPs of the people you are "Hiding" from, is far greater knowledge then being an excellent crack shot on the range from time to time.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Class-III license will get you anything you want.



Tom hits it right on the button. Situational training is very different then your best hunter. Knowing how to properly clear rooms and knowing the TTPs of the people you are "Hiding" from, is far greater knowledge then being an excellent crack shot on the range from time to time.

Let me explain something to you, I am ex-military, been trained for war, been to war, and the training you get, and situations you face do not translate to the civilian world. Something you don't seem to be aware of is that those "situations" they "train" for, military and LEO, involve the fact that they have either a partner, or back up with them, or coming. And whether you accept it or not, most enthusiast and civilians that buy, and carry shoot more than even Army soldiers fire their weapons, and those "situations" and how they are handled as more dependent on the individual. I've seen trained soldiers freeze up, miss everything they shoot at. Nothing guarantees even trained personal will perfectly react to a given situation, as evidenced by the MANY uncalled for shootings by police that seem to happen almost every day.

Totally different situations as xjohnx pointed out.

 

[Lithium381]

Class-III license will get you anything you want.



Tom hits it right on the button. Situational training is very different then your best hunter. Knowing how to properly clear rooms and knowing the TTPs of the people you are "Hiding" from, is far greater knowledge then being an excellent crack shot on the range from time to time.

Even given that, why should a retired LEO have 15 shots, and a civilian only gets 7, REGARDLESS of who has more training in clearing rooms?

 

[Tom]

Let me explain something to you, I am ex-military, been trained for war, been to war, and the training you get, and situations you face do not translate to the civilian world. Something you don't seem to be aware of is that those "situations" they "train" for, military and LEO, involve the fact that they have either a partner, or back up with them, or coming. And whether you accept it or not, most enthusiast and civilians that buy, and carry shoot more than even Army soldiers fire their weapons, and those "situations" and how they are handled as more dependent on the individual. I've seen trained soldiers freeze up, miss everything they shoot at. Nothing guarantees even trained personal will perfectly react to a given situation, as evidenced by the MANY uncalled for shootings by police that seem to happen almost every day.

What the hell is your point ? Because your ex-military you're less qualified to carry a weapon than Snookie ?

 

[xj0hnx]

Class-III license will get you anything you want.

There's no such thing as a Class III license. There's an SOT, Special Occupational Taxpayer, which is a dealer, manufacturer, importer of NFA items, and there are different class depending on which one you do, but as far as a normal civilian to get a Class III firearm you just have to pay the tax, and go through the background check, oh, and wait.

Tom hits it right on the button. Situational training is very different then your best hunter. Knowing how to properly clear rooms and knowing the TTPs of the people you are "Hiding" from, is far greater knowledge then being an excellent crack shot on the range from time to time.

Yea? How many civilians are going to have to clear a room when being confronted by a mugger/rapist? OR move in formation? Or set up an ambush?

 

[ArmyVet88]

Yea? How many civilians are going to have to clear a room when being confronted by a mugger/rapist? OR move in formation? Or set up an ambush?

That's my point after all, why would a civilian need the same mags? It's really not that big of a deal man... carry more mags?! What i am saying is people complaining that retired cops or and Off-Duty cops have a "Higher Capacity mag" is not even substantial. What does it matter if a cop has 4 more bullets then a civilian. The people complaining about this more then likely don't even have a Weapon let alone any bullets, more then likely have ever even held a weapon let alone fired one. Horrible topic to begin with. Your average Joe who carries is not worried about the fact he has less bullets then an off duty cop. Straight up. Come off it

 

[MtnMan]

Many departments make free range ammo available to their officers. Most never bother, and shoot only when they have to re-qualify, once or twice a year.

 

[Lithium381]

That's my point after all, why would a civilian need the same mags? It's really not that big of a deal man... carry more mags?! What i am saying is people complaining that retired cops or and Off-Duty cops have a "Higher Capacity mag" is not even substantial. What does it matter if a cop has 4 more bullets then a civilian. The people complaining about this more then likely don't even have a Weapon let alone any bullets, more then likely have ever even held a weapon let alone fired one. Horrible topic to begin with. Your average Joe who carries is not worried about the fact he has less bullets then an off duty cop. Straight up. Come off it

if it's "not even substantial" then what DOES it matter? Why the restriction on civilians then? Why?

Why?

That's what I thought.

 

[Zebo]

Class-III license will get you anything you want.



Tom hits it right on the button. Situational training is very different then your best hunter. Knowing how to properly clear rooms and knowing the TTPs of the people you are "Hiding" from, is far greater knowledge then being an excellent crack shot on the range from time to time.

What do you think practical shooting like 3-Gun is? Besides not like any gun enthusiast cant buy Army Field Manuals and practice if interested.

And whats all this restricting/you have more rights talk anyway? Founders put right to bear for civilians not former law enforcement to defend against oppressive/tyrannical govt agents in the first place. If anyone should have them they should first. Have y'all forgot how American Revolution actually started it wasnt "tea" it was Britiash sending around an confiscating muskets, ball and powder then they ran into like 70 odd Minutemen at Lexington Common, and the rest is history.

 

[momeNt]

This is entirely expected, many police officers understand the importance of a well-armed society, and they understand that this law only hurts law abiding citizens. The only way it would get their endorsement is if it doesn't affect them or those that served in the brotherhood.

 

[MtnMan]

Hey cops, the rule applies to you too, keep the booger hook off the bang switch until you must shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOI9ahGxMfk

 

[MtnMan]

Hey cops, #1 f....ing rule, always assume that the gun is loaded. #1 f'ing one.

Kimberley - A city policeman, who had recently returned from duty in Marikana, died yesterday morning after accidentally shooting himself in the head with his service pistol, which he apparently thought was not loaded.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/cop-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-head-1.1412033

 

[MtnMan]

Hey cops, #2 rule, keep the booger hook off the bang switch until you have acquired the target.

BERKELEY(KCBS)—A University of California Berkeley campus police officer accidentally shot himself in the leg Tuesday morning as he prepared for work,
“He was holstering his weapon and shot himself in the leg,”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...s-cop-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-leg/

 

[momeNt]

Hey cops, #1 f....ing rule, always assume that the gun is loaded. #1 f'ing one.


http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/cop-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-head-1.1412033

For a non-cop this is a nice way of saying they committed suicide usually.

For a cop, with training, and a mastery of firearms, I think it does a disservice to the brotherhood of police to call this an accidental shooting when it in fact was a suicide.

 

[Lalakai]

........didn't read all of the prior replies so hopefully this isn't a duplicate response.

Many LEO's (working or retired) live, raise families, go shopping, interact out in public much as most people do. Significant exception happens when they start meeting individuals who have had negative or adverse impact in their lives (people arrested, charged/convicted of crimes) due to that "LEO". Now that same person meets the LEO as a civilian, and they want to push the issue again or get even.

Really wrecks the day to be at the mall with the kids, and suddenly be confronted by 3-4 individuals that were arrested and convicted of crimes, and they blame you. Pack mentality takes over, they feel braver with a couple buddies backing them up, and if everyone is lucky, it only goes to a loud swearing and "in your face" posturing. All the while the off duty officer is worried about his/her spouse and kids standing 5 feet away. I know many LEO's that won't even go to malls or large stores in their precincts because they have met too many people they've had negative run-ins with, during the course of their job.

No doubt there are situations where the privilege involving weapons and off duty/retired LEO's is abused. On this one though, I'll support it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

........didn't read all of the prior replies so hopefully this isn't a duplicate response.

Many LEO's (working or retired) live, raise families, go shopping, interact out in public much as most people do. Significant exception happens when they start meeting individuals who have had negative or adverse impact in their lives (people arrested, charged/convicted of crimes) due to that "LEO". Now that same person meets the LEO as a civilian, and they want to push the issue again or get even.

Really wrecks the day to be at the mall with the kids, and suddenly be confronted by 3-4 individuals that were arrested and convicted of crimes, and they blame you. Pack mentality takes over, they feel braver with a couple buddies backing them up, and if everyone is lucky, it only goes to a loud swearing and "in your face" posturing. All the while the off duty officer is worried about his/her spouse and kids standing 5 feet away. I know many LEO's that won't even go to malls or large stores in their precincts because they have met too many people they've had negative run-ins with, during the course of their job.

No doubt there are situations where the privilege involving weapons and off duty/retired LEO's is abused. On this one though, I'll support it.

Yeah you've pretty much restated exactly what I've said in this thread but apparently real world experiences by actual LEO's isn't factual.

 

[Lalakai]

Yeah you've pretty much restated exactly what I've said in this thread but apparently real world experiences by actual LEO's isn't factual.

sorry, didn't mean to repeat. lol I read the first couple, seen it was already degenerating, and skipped to the end. As for the real world experiences....it's too easy to point out the bad cops instead of looking at what the majority are doing. When the job is done right, it's not worth the time to do an article.......it's "boring" news. But I do appreciate those that make that choice, so Thanks.

 

[Lithium381]

........didn't read all of the prior replies so hopefully this isn't a duplicate response.

Many LEO's (working or retired) live, raise families, go shopping, interact out in public much as most people do. Significant exception happens when they start meeting individuals who have had negative or adverse impact in their lives (people arrested, charged/convicted of crimes) due to that "LEO". Now that same person meets the LEO as a civilian, and they want to push the issue again or get even.

Really wrecks the day to be at the mall with the kids, and suddenly be confronted by 3-4 individuals that were arrested and convicted of crimes, and they blame you. Pack mentality takes over, they feel braver with a couple buddies backing them up, and if everyone is lucky, it only goes to a loud swearing and "in your face" posturing. All the while the off duty officer is worried about his/her spouse and kids standing 5 feet away. I know many LEO's that won't even go to malls or large stores in their precincts because they have met too many people they've had negative run-ins with, during the course of their job.

No doubt there are situations where the privilege involving weapons and off duty/retired LEO's is abused. On this one though, I'll support it.

I understand that. It still isn't justification for having no restriction on their ammunition capacity for everyone else. Why are we all second class citizens and the law doesn't apply to everyone equally? If there is a dangerous place, don't go there. That means moving if you have to. Sorry but your choice of a career shouldn't give you more ability/right to protect yourself than the rest of us.

 

[xj0hnx]

That's my point after all, why would a civilian need the same mags? It's really not that big of a deal man... carry more mags?! What i am saying is people complaining that retired cops or and Off-Duty cops have a "Higher Capacity mag" is not even substantial. What does it matter if a cop has 4 more bullets then a civilian. The people complaining about this more then likely don't even have a Weapon let alone any bullets, more then likely have ever even held a weapon let alone fired one. Horrible topic to begin with. Your average Joe who carries is not worried about the fact he has less bullets then an off duty cop. Straight up. Come off it

Huh? Why should a civilian be allowed less than a retired LEO, who is now a civilian? You "come off it". Capacity bans are asinine, and ridiculous, especially when you're talking about a whole 4 rounds. It's completely knee jerk, emotion driven BS, and does nothing to stop crime.

 

[xj0hnx]

What the hell is your point ? Because your ex-military you're less qualified to carry a weapon than Snookie ?

No dummy, my point is that just because someone was a cop, or military doesn't mean they are any more qualified to carry a firearm than civilian, it is something that has to be taken on a case by case basis.

 

[Lalakai]

I understand that. It still isn't justification for having no restriction on their ammunition capacity for everyone else. Why are we all second class citizens and the law doesn't apply to everyone equally? If there is a dangerous place, don't go there. That means moving if you have to. Sorry but your choice of a career shouldn't give you more ability/right to protect yourself than the rest of us.

not sure if I can explain it but I think we may be trying to compare apples versus oranges. Very very few civilians are in a job that daily creates the situations for reprisals; few civilians actively have known criminals specifically looking for them. I don't look at is as a "second class versus first class citizen" but more of a situational response. Understand, I do not support any ban or restriction; proper and consistant enforcement of our existing laws will go a long ways toward reducing firearm violence. Nor do i think exceptions should be made on a case by case basis. It's splitting hairs but in a situational setting where there is a common group relationship, exceptions should be made. We already make those exceptions for felons, mentally challenged, PPO's, and those are made on a group definition not on a case by case basis.

As for career choices restricting/enhancing your life........most LEO's already apply restrictions on their activities to reduce the threat to themselves and their families, when and where it's feasible. Putting the kids in a different school, not shopping at the corner market, changing the times and locations you attend church, even going to the beach and taking a swim. Hopefully you realize that no person becomes a LEO with the thought of getting rich, but it's more in response to doing the right thing in the community. Agreed, there are those LEO's that should have never even made it through the academy door, and it's those individuals that the public holds up as the definition of all LEOs. I've said it before, go down to the local police and ask to do a ride along for a night. Sit in the passenger seat and watch how a patrol goes, see how many times the officer has to make a split second decision that could be reviewed and hashed over by countless arm chair quarterbacks the next day.

I will agree to disagree on this one, that off duty and retired LEOs are in a situational group where special considerations need to come into play.

 

[Tom]

if it's "not even substantial" then what DOES it matter? Why the restriction on civilians then? Why?

Why?

That's what I thought.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the restriction on civilians, all I'm saying is there are sound reasons for considering cops and military in a different category as far as their usefullness with a firearm.

Like in a public place where a criminal is commiting a crime, a retired cop can most likely deal with that moreso than an average person.

Of course this thread makes it clear there are lots of cop haters and military haters, protected by the anonymity of the internet at least. But these people are completely FOS and owe their lives to cops and the military just like all the rest of us.

 

[xj0hnx]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the restriction on civilians, all I'm saying is there are sound reasons for considering cops and military in a different category as far as their usefullness with a firearm.

Like in a public place where a criminal is commiting a crime, a retired cop can most likely deal with that moreso than an average person.

Of course this thread makes it clear there are lots of cop haters and military haters, protected by the anonymity of the internet at least. But these people are completely FOS and owe their lives to cops and the military just like all the rest of us.

Your worship of LEO, and military is noted, and foolish. They are people, they come from, and return to the same population. Their training is not rigorous unless they are in special units, and there are a lot of civilians that are much better trained than you average LEO/grunt. There are police that never eve draw their firearm during the course of their tour, and military that never see the outside of an office. To say that blanket consideration should be given to them based on their jobs is simply ...stupid.

 

[Phanuel]

Of course this thread makes it clear there are lots of cop haters and military haters, protected by the anonymity of the internet at least. But these people are completely FOS and owe their lives to cops and the military just like all the rest of us.

This thread makes it clear that you're under some strong illusions about things.

When, during the last 60 years, has our military saved any of our lives? I don't owe my life to any of our service members for any of the work performed over the last half decade. America hasn't faced a credible threat that our military could handle outside of stirring up the hornet's nest in the middle east.

Nor do I owe my life to any peace officers. I owe my life to myself, and I deserve the right to protect my own life on my own terms. I am not handing over my freedoms to a class of people who openly admit that they think they're better than the rest of us civilians and then turn around and display open disregard for civilian welfare publicly like the events that took place in Southern California with the truck rammings and shootings.

So no, I don't care for them having any exemptions, they've failed to prove to me that they deserve the right to even carry firearms.

 

[Lithium381]

I'm not disagreeing with you that former LEO may have a higher risk due to their chosen profession. If Cuomo and Bloomberg agree that "7 rounds is enough to protect anyone" (parahrasing) then why isn't it enough for Retired LEO? They're not more likely to encounter more than 7 threats at a time so much as there are more individuals looking to do them harm. Why are they afforded 3, or 8 more opportunities to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones when citizens who MAY face the same threats are handicapped in their ability to do the same?

I know you agree that there should be no restrictions, we're not arguing about that point. I'm still having trouble understanding why my life is not as valuable in the eyes of the STATE...