How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?

[mswaim]

No. I didn't say they were. What I'm saying is that if individual policemen and their unions are going to stand by and allow anti-gun police chiefs to be the only law enforcement voice speaking publicly in this debate then I have no objection to all policemen being treated as if they are anti-gun.

The unionized cops you speak of (and not that many really are) will never spend their time or money lobbying on gun issues. Their efforts are better spent on things that affect them and their families directly; wages, benefits, retirement, etc.

Limiting their access to certain weapons and equipment is of no real consequence since their department's dictate what they can carry on the job.

This is blown way out of proportion from an officer's perspective, since the majority of LEO's could care less what capacity magazine they are issued, etc. As stated earlier - when some of us started, pump shotguns and revolvers ruled. I made do with what I was given then, and make do with what I have now.

The bigger issue is the fact many politicians want to disarm the public, they are not talking about disarming me or other cops. That's what you should be working against, not worrying about the fact some copper has a few more rounds in his magazine, or a semi-auto/auto rifle at his disposal.

My ID allows me to carry across fifty states, so that coupled with my current arsenal makes me smile all the way to the range......

 

[Lt. ZO6]

No. I didn't say they were. What I'm saying is that if individual policemen and their unions are going to stand by and allow anti-gun police chiefs to be the only law enforcement voice speaking publicly in this debate then I have no objection to all policemen being treated as if they are anti-gun.

But you made a point to indicate a retirement/severance package for a Chief of Police. Almost as if you were being disingenuous, portraying all police officers as receiving insanely high retirements...

 

[mswaim]

But you made a point to indicate a retirement/severance package for a Chief of Police. Almost as if you were being disingenuous, portraying all police officers as receiving insanely high retirements...

I agree - And what is wrong with retirement packages openly negotiated with municipalities who wanted to retain the best employees by offering competitive compensation? No one put a gun to their heads, they willingly accepted the fact they would need to fund those plans down the road. Of course, the same politicians are making decisions about guns...........

Now, with that said; I'm not sure how this weighs into a debate over whether or not LEO's should have access to guns citizens cannot get.

I'm on board already; I don't want or need access to guns private citizens cannot get.

 

[Im1livewire]

Loose ratio? Okay = More than you.

:lol: :beer:

 

[cbj5259]

One point I think that is being overlooked is that it is assumed that we as police have full freedom of speech. .we in fact do not. Most if not all departments have a sticky little clause in their duty manuals about conduct. For example in my agency we are not allowed to show any public display of dissention against a superior officer unless that superior officer is breaking the law. We cannot badmouth, publicly disagree or make comments against a superior officer. This even applies to off duty conduct. We can be brought up on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. So.. publicly complaining about my police chiefs personal opinion on gun control will get me suspended at best and fired at worst. Anyone who has served in the military knows this is the same set of rules they abide by as well. Now if my superior gives me an unlawful order, I am obligated to refuse...but a chief expressing his public opinion is not an unlawful order.

Most officers I know have no issue with citizens practicing their 2A rights. I have no issue with any citizen who is competent carrying whatever weapon they want. The key word is competent. By default law enforcement officers have undergone as thorough of a background check as any individual can have. Polygraphs, investigator followups, medical records, psychological exams and drug tests.. all just to get the job. Then they are trained and qualify with each weapon they use. When Joe citizen passes the same rigorous process a cop does, then he/she can carry a howitzer for all I care. I would not have a problem with someone who took that time and effort being allowed to carry full auto weapons at that point.

As far as police being restricted by weapons manufactures...if that's what they want to do that's fine. The next time there is a mall shooting or a Virginia tech type incident, do you want your police swat team showing up with wheel guns or AR's? Living proof was the 1997 Hollywood bank shootout.. two guys with superior weapons held hundreds of cops and citizens at bay because the police were under gunned. The police are not the problem.. reactionary politicians are. Punish them...not the street cops.


Sent from my sharona

 

[try03venom]

I hate New York!!!

 

[try03venom]

in NY the SAFE act is such a rushed pile of crap they forgot the law enforcement exemption. Per the law 7 rounds in all mags even for COPS!!!!

 

[EvergreenSVT]

I don't care for the boycott idea in general but what I really like is an emerging trend of manufacturers requiring that agencies provide a letter stating that citizens ought to be able to own these things as well.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

I agree - And what is wrong with retirement packages openly negotiated with municipalities who wanted to retain the best employees by offering competitive compensation? No one put a gun to their heads, they willingly accepted the fact they would need to fund those plans down the road. Of course, the same politicians are making decisions about guns...........

Now, with that said; I'm not sure how this weighs into a debate over whether or not LEO's should have access to guns citizens cannot get.

I'm on board already; I don't want or need access to guns private citizens cannot get.

The problem with public sector unions is that it creates a system where public employees pay to elect people who will hire more like them and raise their wages--limited only by the power of the opposition to block tax increases to pay for it. When they reach that limit they increase benefits because they can do that easily and someone else has to pay for it down the line.

 

[blacksheep-1]

FWIW I don't see the gun manufacturers aimed directly at LE, they usually target "any government employee". Maybe a few target LE but I don't see it that way as a whole.

 

[NEp8ntballer]

when we get invaded, and our military is over run. our last line of defense will be the civil service.

by Canada or Mexico?

one of those invasions has already started...

 

[EvergreenSVT]

FWIW I don't see the gun manufacturers aimed directly at LE, they usually target "any government employee". Maybe a few target LE but I don't see it that way as a whole.

What part of the government buys firearms other than military ad law enforcement? Specifically, what type of government employee is often exempted from otherwise all encompassing ban on firearms ownership?

 

[EvergreenSVT]

by Canada or Mexico?

one of those invasions has already started...

The likelihood of a ground invasion of the US is about as low as it gets. Balkanization is becoming more likely every day.

I was talking to a friend the other day, who is a full time SWAT guy in a major city on the east coast. He said "funny you should mention that word, I've heard that word a lot in the ready room lately."

 

[mswaim]

The problem with public sector unions is that it creates a system where public employees pay to elect people who will hire more like them and raise their wages--limited only by the power of the opposition to block tax increases to pay for it. When they reach that limit they increase benefits because they can do that easily and someone else has to pay for it down the line.

So how is it different from the Teamsters, or better yet - the International Longshoremen Association? They have even higher wages, higher benefits and better retirement, all passed on to you through higher prices on everything from soup to nuts. They contribute millions to election campaigns and there is no politician alive who doesn't wet their pants when they threaten to strike.

 

[mswaim]

But you made a point to indicate a retirement/severance package for a Chief of Police. Almost as if you were being disingenuous, portraying all police officers as receiving insanely high retirements...

Read an article this morning, made me laugh at loud when I thought of this thread and some of the posts regarding public employee salaries:

Alameda County's Administrator Susan Muranishi has decided to retire with 38 years of service credit.

Her total annual retirement pay? $400,000.00 which includes a base retirement income of $301,000 and the rest in deferred pension plans paid by the county.

In her last year on the job, her base pay was $422,268, in addition she received $137,196 contributed to her pension account and $46,500 split between two different deferred compensation accounts. As a side note - Susan never personally contributed to her deferred comp funds as most of you do, with employer matches. Her contract called for 100% funding supplied from the county - and they agreed.

And just so you know; her base salary included $24,000 in "equity pay" which is a negotiated benefit designed to guarantee her compensation was at least 10% more than any other county employee. Other components of her salary were; $54,000 in "longevity pay" for staying with the county for more than 30 years, an annual performance bonus of $24,000 and another $9,000 for serving on a special panel. And of course, $8,292 for a car allowance.

Now that is a cleverly negotiated compensation package. My hats off to Susan! Enjoy your retirement.

My guess is Susan will soon begin her new career in the consulting field, where her talents will command even higher levels of compensation, since the benefit piece will be a moot point. :rockon:

 

[bluesnake263]

its not about citizens or cops...its ctizens AND cops. The average person has an obligation to protect his family, cops have an obligation to protect everyone. I dont care what court cases you wanna throw out there, show me a cop that doesnt run toward the sounds of danger, and i'll show you a coward.

Ditty, you call 911 for help, im comming as fast and as hard as i can with everything ive got, and when I get there, I will fight for you and your family, I will get hurt for you and your family, I may have to die for you and your family. I took an oath to do this every day/night for 30 years or until I die...never forget what we do for you. With that being said, I want you armed to the freaking teeth along with every other person out there with brains in his skull and good in his heart. Even those ppl out there that dont respect police, we may have to stand shoulder to shoulder one day and engage a threat. Good men stand together, weather they have a suit, a T-shirt, or a badge.

 

[Mach1USMC]

Using this logic you could say that criminals for the most part do not target law enforcement. They target regular citizens. So would it not stand to reason citizens should have the same rights to weapons to defend themselves?

This exactly!! That's the whole point of owning a firearm. That and as well intentioned as 99% of the LEOs are out there they simply can't be all places at all times. Why should I as a private citizen be restricted from protecting myself? We should at least have access to the same "restricted" magazines and hardware as LEOs. A great quote I recently heard from a military vet was you don't know how much ammo or firepower you need until AFTER the fight!!

 

[Mach1USMC]

One point I think that is being overlooked is that it is assumed that we as police have full freedom of speech. .we in fact do not. Most if not all departments have a sticky little clause in their duty manuals about conduct. For example in my agency we are not allowed to show any public display of dissention against a superior officer unless that superior officer is breaking the law. We cannot badmouth, publicly disagree or make comments against a superior officer. This even applies to off duty conduct. We can be brought up on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. So.. publicly complaining about my police chiefs personal opinion on gun control will get me suspended at best and fired at worst. Anyone who has served in the military knows this is the same set of rules they abide by as well. Now if my superior gives me an unlawful order, I am obligated to refuse...but a chief expressing his public opinion is not an unlawful order.

Most officers I know have no issue with citizens practicing their 2A rights. I have no issue with any citizen who is competent carrying whatever weapon they want. The key word is competent. By default law enforcement officers have undergone as thorough of a background check as any individual can have. Polygraphs, investigator followups, medical records, psychological exams and drug tests.. all just to get the job. Then they are trained and qualify with each weapon they use. When Joe citizen passes the same rigorous process a cop does, then he/she can carry a howitzer for all I care. I would not have a problem with someone who took that time and effort being allowed to carry full auto weapons at that point.

As far as police being restricted by weapons manufactures...if that's what they want to do that's fine. The next time there is a mall shooting or a Virginia tech type incident, do you want your police swat team showing up with wheel guns or AR's? Living proof was the 1997 Hollywood bank shootout.. two guys with superior weapons held hundreds of cops and citizens at bay because the police were under gunned. The police are not the problem.. reactionary politicians are. Punish them...not the street cops.


Sent from my sharona

Something I'd like to point out- fully automatic weapons aren't for sale to the avg joe. You practically have to go through a anal probe to get one and the process can take over a year. And correct me if I'm wrong but not even a LEO can get one as a personal or off duty weapon. Even if LEOs showed up with AR-15's to the Hollywood shoot out they would still "technically" be outgunned. AK's are no joke. The only advantage LEOs had in that scenario was training. The point I'm trying to make is all restricting gun sales does to LEO's and law abiding citizens is restrict the ability to protect ourselves from criminals who are NOT going to give up their illegal firearms or go through background checks to obtain more guns..... Seems like a no brainer to me:shrug:

 

[DarkMach1]

One point I think that is being overlooked is that it is assumed that we as police have full freedom of speech. .we in fact do not. Most if not all departments have a sticky little clause in their duty manuals about conduct. For example in my agency we are not allowed to show any public display of dissention against a superior officer unless that superior officer is breaking the law. We cannot badmouth, publicly disagree or make comments against a superior officer. This even applies to off duty conduct. We can be brought up on charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. So.. publicly complaining about my police chiefs personal opinion on gun control will get me suspended at best and fired at worst. Anyone who has served in the military knows this is the same set of rules they abide by as well. Now if my superior gives me an unlawful order, I am obligated to refuse...but a chief expressing his public opinion is not an unlawful order.

Most officers I know have no issue with citizens practicing their 2A rights. I have no issue with any citizen who is competent carrying whatever weapon they want. The key word is competent. By default law enforcement officers have undergone as thorough of a background check as any individual can have. Polygraphs, investigator followups, medical records, psychological exams and drug tests.. all just to get the job. Then they are trained and qualify with each weapon they use. When Joe citizen passes the same rigorous process a cop does, then he/she can carry a howitzer for all I care. I would not have a problem with someone who took that time and effort being allowed to carry full auto weapons at that point.

As far as police being restricted by weapons manufactures...if that's what they want to do that's fine. The next time there is a mall shooting or a Virginia tech type incident, do you want your police swat team showing up with wheel guns or AR's? Living proof was the 1997 Hollywood bank shootout.. two guys with superior weapons held hundreds of cops and citizens at bay because the police were under gunned. The police are not the problem.. reactionary politicians are. Punish them...not the street cops.


Sent from my sharona

Tell me again how that process identified that psycho over there in California??

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Even if LEOs showed up with AR-15's to the Hollywood shoot out they would still "technically" be outgunned. AK's are no joke.

The armor those 2 knuckleheads wore would not have stopped a 5.56 round.