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

[Aerosi665]

While I have a very deep respect for all LEOs and the extremely difficult job they do, I do not feel as though they are above the law or should have additional protections that are not available to the citizens of this nation.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

I am not entitled to police protection, therefor any armaments the police carry are for their own protection only. As a free man and someone who was endowed by my creator with an inalienable right to defend myself from harm, I shall be entitled to the same protections as any LEO might desire as well.

 

[rrpederson]

Or, since I am a citizen, the crimes are being committed against myself and other citizens. We are the frist line of defense. Police Officers second. I'm not attacking you personally, it's just that, in MAYBE half of all crimes that are reported, the police don't arrive for minutes at the best, when most violent crimes occur w/in seconds. And as a Military Veteran, I feel like my job description dictates my, and all other citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, of any type they choose to keep.

As both a military veteran, and a law enforcement officer, I agree with you that citizens are their own line of defense. Law enforcement officers cannot be in all places at once. Aside from that, it is the RIGHT of every citizen in this nation to be able to defend themself from any threat. I don't believe that the current gun control laws are effective, and neither will the future gun control laws. The criminal element in this nation is still able to acquire any type of firearm they desire, regardless of what laws are in place. With that fact established, any actual effort to control guns will only hinder the law abiding citizen's ability to adequately defend himself in a lethal force confrontation, because the criminals don't abide by laws.

I believe the issue outlined above, and the one raised by the OP are two different issues and have been mixed together in this thread. To answer the OP's question, Law enforcement officers are not granted any special rights by gun manufacturers or the federal government.

 

[rrpederson]

I am not entitled to police protection, therefor any armaments the police carry are for their own protection only. As a free man and someone who was endowed by my creator with an inalienable right to defend myself from harm, I shall be entitled to the same protections as any LEO might desire as well.

This isn't entirely accurate. Law enforcement officers are required to protect others, when the need arises. Non-law enforcement citizens are not. However I agree with the rest of your statement.

 

[Aerosi665]

This isn't entirely accurate. Law enforcement officers are required to protect others, when the need arises. Non-law enforcement citizens are not. However I agree with the rest of your statement.

I'm sorry mister pederson, but you are gravely mistaken. They ARE NOT required to protect anyone other than those who have "special relationships" with the police department.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

If we are going to have a mature discussion in this thread, you need to educate yourself on relevant cases before you come in and spread disinformation. The Supreme Court has agreed over and over that an LEO has absolutely NO DUTY other than their own prerogative or desire to protect ANY private individual other than in a special relationship case such as with the President/Secret Service.

 

[musclefan21]

While I have a very deep respect for all LEOs and the extremely difficult job they do, I do not feel as though they are above the law or should have additional protections that are not available to the citizens of this nation.

While I agree citizens should be able to protect themselves as L.E.Os cant be there at all times, dont you think a law enforcement officer is a bigger target than an average citizen out there?

am not entitled to police protection, therefor any armaments the police carry are for their own protection only.

cops carry for their own protection and others. Your statement is not entirely correct. There have been multiple where an off duty officer saved someones life by confronting the bad guys. It is ""expected"" by cops to do such things, while it is not the case for an average citizen.

For those who say cops dont protect, take a look at the bigger picture please. Cops protect citizens everyday but putting the bad guys away. A bad guy on his way to go hurt someone, rob someone, etc. It may not be always directly, but cops indirectly protect citizens everyday.

 

[Aerosi665]

There have been multiple where an off duty officer saved someones life by confronting the bad guys. It is ""expected"" by cops to do such things, while it is not the case for an average citizen.

For those who say cops dont protect, take a look at the bigger picture please. Cops protect citizens everyday but putting the bad guys away. A bad guy on his way to go hurt someone, rob someone, etc. It may not be always directly, but cops indirectly protect citizens everyday.

If an officer acted to protect a civilian while off duty, they are not acting as a police officer on duty but rather as a civilian who has taken a situation into their own hands. I am absolutely NOT arguing that officers do not protect people. They do, and I am very thankful for that. I am merely pointing out that according to US law as defined by the supreme court, police officers have NO DUTY to protect ANY citizen. Period. You may not agree, but that is the law of the land and it cannot be argued as that is the ruling which is still in effect. Please, if you know better and can prove it, point me to the case law which establishes your point of view and I'll gladly reconsider.

 

[musclefan21]

If an officer acted to protect a civilian while off duty, they are not acting as a police officer on duty but rather as a civilian who has taken a situation into their own hands. I am absolutely NOT arguing that officers do not protect people. They do, and I am very thankful for that. I am merely pointing out that according to US law as defined by the supreme court, police officers have NO DUTY to protect ANY citizen. Period. You may not agree, but that is the law of the land and it cannot be argued as that is the ruling which is still in effect. Please, if you know better and can prove it, point me to the case law which establishes your point of view and I'll gladly reconsider.

I agree with that ruling. If police were required to protect people while off duty/on duty, PDs would go bankrupt and people would get rich by suing them everytime. It is very well known that police cant be everywhere, so it is unrealistic to require police to protect while off duty or on duty. Because things happen and they happen very quick. That ruling is solely because it would be unrealistic to expect guaranteed protection 24/7 from the police. However, Police while on duty will respond to calls, and will act to protect the citizens from the harms way at all times. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not, but they attempt to protect at all times. It is their job to protect and serve. Ruling is there because as i said it is unrealistic for police to protect everyone at all times. preventing departments to get sued everyday. That's all.

P.S. Officers are Officers 24/7. They have full police powers off duty. So, when an Off duty officer act to protect someone, he is acting as an officer, not a civilian. Most prefer to be a good witness in most cases though. I will say this again though, community expects an officer to act to a crime while off duty, but they dont expect a civilian to act.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Caveat: I am not a cop.

I am unsympathetic to the claim that policemen have a greater right to these weapons than others. If a state legislature has declared certain weapons to be unsuitable for use in defense of oneself and suitable only for war then they ought to be only available to the military. If you want one of these weapons you can hang up your badge and enlist.

If you don't want to have these restrictions, you are free to become politically active. Elect union representation that will go on TV and tell everyone that the chief is pandering to his boss when he says that these weapons should be banned. Start a lobbying group. Do something useful to change things.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

If an officer acted to protect a civilian while off duty, they are not acting as a police officer on duty but rather as a civilian who has taken a situation into their own hands.

Not true at all. If I take any type of enforcement action while off-duty, I will be judged as a law enforcement officer...

 

[Aerosi665]

Not true at all. If I take any type of enforcement action while off-duty, I will be judged as a law enforcement officer...

I stand corrected on that point. I researched it, and you are correct.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Caveat: I am not a cop.

I am unsympathetic to the claim that policemen have a greater right to these weapons than others.

I don't believe any LEO here is asking for you or anyone else's sympathy.

If a state legislature has declared certain weapons to be unsuitable for use in defense of oneself and suitable only for war then they ought to be only available to the military.

You should follow that advice. Somehow I get the feeling you and some others believe we LEO's are behind the proposed legislation banning certain firearm types in various states. By statute, I can buy restricted magazines, etc. Not bragging, but stating fact.

If you want one of these weapons you can hang up your badge and enlist.

The vast majority of law enforcement officers in this country have done just that. Many have military service and continue to serve the public after their military careers.

If you don't want to have these restrictions, you are free to become politically active. Elect union representation that will go on TV and tell everyone that the chief is pandering to his boss when he says that these weapons should be banned. Start a lobbying group. Do something useful to change things.

I don't have these restrictions placed upon me. Perhaps you should become politically active and attempt to enact change yourself, instead of putting this on the shoulders of law enforcement.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

I stand corrected on that point. I researched it, and you are correct.

After 25 years of law enforcement experience, I should hope so.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Your sense of humor is broken.

I am very politically active. Or as my Congressman would say, "hey Ryan, how's your dad doing? He looked really seasick when we went fishing"

Law enforcement administrators are lining up to support gun control publicly. I haven't seen any beat cops on the news arguing the opposite. Now is their time to shine. We called and wrote and went to see our representatives to get LEOSA enacted. Your turn.

Manufacturers are dropping LE sales because they don't want one guy to use their product to shoot another guy for owning their product. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[Cobi-Wan]

I don't have the law experience(as in lawyers and law enforcement) that I can only assume some have from the posts that I have read. That being said, I feel my opinion is valid on the topic, as I am just a regular citizen that would require protection from either LEOs or myself for me, my family, and those around me. I see the stoppage of sales to LEOs purely as a political move, much like a boycott. It is used to show their stance on the current, as well as future, gun control laws. When people boycott purchase of goods it is done to invoke change. This is exactly what the manufacturers have done. It is their right to do so.

I hope this tactic is successful in changing the minds of those in power.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Although some manufacturers have restricted their sales, as with anything else, plenty will continue to sell...

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Although some manufacturers have restricted there sales, as with anything else, plenty will continue to sell...

Truth. All of the majors will keep selling to LE.

 

[2004Droptop]

LEOs live by the same laws as citizens. A company selling to citizens and not LEOs seems like stupid business practice so they are sure to fail anyway…

 

[nighthawk756]

Very valid points discussed up to this point.

But notwithstanding the political nature of the topic, it comes down to a very rudimentary fact. Criminals don't obey the law. They acquire whatever type weapon they desire very easily. LE has to face those same individuals many times over what a normal citizen has to face them. Therefore it stands to reason that LE needs to have the best weapons to face that threat.

So in my opinion, I don't think LE should be restricted. But on the opposite side of the coin, I'm 100% for keeping the 2nd Amendment intact. I'm 100% against any further restrictions on law abiding citizens. Should we revise the way mental illness is tracked and it be more readily available during backgrounds? Yes. But further restricting the types of weapons we buy? Absolutely not.

And for the record, the reason "beat cops" don't get on the news to viliify their upper echelon for backing gun control is simple....their job would be in jeopardy. Most departments have poilicies restricting their officers (unless approved) from engaging in ANY political activity while in uniform OR while acting as an agent of the department(i.e.-not in uniform but identifying one self as being an officer from said dept.)

 

[SVTPete83]

Very valid points discussed up to this point.

But notwithstanding the political nature of the topic, it comes down to a very rudimentary fact. Criminals don't obey the law. They acquire whatever type weapon they desire very easily. LE has to face those same individuals many times over what a normal citizen has to face them. Therefore it stands to reason that LE needs to have the best weapons to face that threat.

.)

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?

 

[EvergreenSVT]

That's what unions are for--political activity. If we're going to pay retired cops $250,000 a year (California this is you) because the union is effective then they can turn that effectiveness into change on this subject as well.