They should be treated as a civillian and have the same laws that any joe has to follow
Last edited:
How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?
- Thread starter blackvette101
- Start date
I have no problem with "joe" who has had some sort of background check owning an AR.
Poor logic. Guess how long after the shooting started that the first SWAT units started arriving...
Also this.
I have a unique perspective on this situation because my family has become very interested in firearms since I was in the usmc. My brother wants an AR, but he honestly wouldn't know what to do with it beyond Call of Duty and he's a 33 y/o chemist. So he isn't exactly unintelligent. It all comes down to training. Coincidently he was telling me about my cousin K, who showed him his AR and I wouldn't trust that kid with a ****ing cigarette lighter.
Some of you have seen first hand how some people can lose their shit or just not pay attention, which creates a great risk for everyone around them. With a bolt action this isn't nearly as much of a problem as someone using a mag fed weapon.
Do I think people should be allowed to own weapons? **** yeah 'murica. I however think it should be the responsibility of the gun owner to be properly trained and familiar with what they are owning though.
LE discount is like military discount, just a perk of the trade. If you don't like it, become a leo or mil to get the discount yourself. Beyond that this is entirely political and above all our pay grades anyway.
your JOB requires you to do this. I MIGHT be in favor of it for those wanting to own full autos. I would NOT be in favor of it for people to get semi-autos or pistols. You did not have to undergo an SBBI in order to get a weapon, you do it so you can have a job. there is a HUGE difference.
The current system of regulating automatic weapons has produced only two murderers--a policeman and a doctor.
Police are civilians. They should be armed the same as other civilians. Period. If we the people can't defend ourselves with the most effective means possible, why should they have it? That's the point those such as LaRue are trying to make. The police should not be a more powerful force than the normal civilians.
But our weaponry should at least be on par with the criminals...
I agree. And so should the civilian weaponry.
I gotta jump into this.. read below.. nuff said..
Oregon Sheriff's refuse to enforce federal gun regs..
Coos, Curry, Crook and Linn county sheriffs refuse to enforce federal gun regulations | OregonLive.com
Saw a nice bumper sticker today it said "I carry heavy weapons, would rather carry a cop but since I cant I carry heavy weapons" Kind of made me think.
one of the most stupid comment i have heard of in a long time.
police are civilians? please explain
Last edited:
a civilian is a non-combatant, or those who are not in the military, police, or firefighter... yes, firefighter is included in that too. at a police department there are officers, and civilian employees. my id i had when dispatching (how my department used to start officers out) before getting sworn, says "_____ is a full-time civilian employee." to me, it's just a word, and i feel like an average joe talking to the guys i work with, sitting at home playing video games, or working on my cars... but, even off duty, with my department policy, i have a duty to act (violent misdemeanors, felonies etc.) whereas my neighbor isn't going to incur any disciplinary action for his lack of action. how is some large incident reported? "30 civilians injured in chemical spill" or "25 civilians, 5 firefighters/officers injured in chemical spill." the word isn't a matter of status, it's a matter of duty to act. civilian law enforcement is still used to differentiate from military police, and i really don't give a shit who i'm considered, civilian or non-civilian, my duties are the same regardless of an arbitrary term.
Considering LEO have what they need to do their job while they're doing their job, they shouldn't be treated differently than civilians in regards to the purchase of firearms as they are no different than anyone else when the uniform is off.
cops are cops 24/7. They are legally bound to act if a felony is taking place. if they don't and it is proven they did nothing when they could have they will be relieved of duty.
A duty may exist as a matter of policy or it may be established (google "privity) at any time by a promise of aid. Some states might create a duty to act but there is none under the Federal Constitution or law and punishment in any case would be an administrative rather than criminal proceeding.
I believe that as a matter of law in any place where weapons are restricted, that restriction should exempt agencies rather than individuals, regardless of their credentials. Therefore they would be unable to purchase restricted equipment personally, to retain it after the completion of their service, to use it for personal business or to possess it when off duty. If agency policy specifies that they are off duty at all their restricted equipment should be secured on agency property.
European cops turn in their weapons when they go home mostly, for similar reasons.
Last edited:
By most definitions, and certainly by traditional ones, a civilian is a person who is not in the armed forces nor a specialist in Roman law. Personally, I wouldn't say anyone is something other than a civilian unless they are bound by the UCMJ.
i already stated that it doesn't matter to me what i'm considered, but merriam-webster lists:
Merriam-Webster said:
and the oxford dictionary lists:
half (literally) of the guys at my police department are previous military, and even between us people disagree whether or not police should be considered civilians. some say it gives a military state feel to think of police as non-civilians, others say people thinking about police as civilians minimizes the feel of authority. some say police are exempt from some statutes where civilians are not, and the other half will say "we go home at the end of the shift, and can quit." i just don't see why people let words hurt their feelings so much. i'm going to arrest a guy that assaulted somebody else whether he thinks i have too much authority, or if he thinks i'm the same as him and i just have a badge for a job.Oxford said:
the idea in your other post isn't a bad thought, but take home cars, and rapid deployment come into play with it... especially at smaller departments where there aren't 20 officers/deputies per shift and don't have overlapping shifts. my city is a 15 minute drive from the county seat/swat team. if there was an active shooter at shift change and the outgoing guys had put their equipment up for the day, and the other shift was just getting theirs out, their would be an issue with time getting the equipment, rather than just turning the car around and having the equipment with you. or in the middle of the shift, the on call guys having to come to the pd to equip themselves would be lost minutes in stopping the threat.
To be clear, I think the police ought to have whatever tools they need close at hand, though if there is a law against possessing something it ought to be possessed solely in connection with work duties. In many states with assault weapons bans current and retired officers can buy those things for personal use. That's wrong. If its justified by employment then the employer ought to own it.
I'm a huge fan of the special operations capable patrolman concept and that requires gear that is with officers at all times.
I'm a huge fan of the special operations capable patrolman concept and that requires gear that is with officers at all times.
An example of an LEO's indifference to the Constitution.
So LOE's are not civilians? Does that mean that we now have militarized police forces in out country now?
Users who are viewing this thread
