Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EvergreenSVT" data-source="post: 13368097" data-attributes="member: 22445"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>European cops turn in their weapons when they go home mostly, for similar reasons.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EvergreenSVT, post: 13368097, member: 22445"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
How do you guys feel about gun companys not selling to LEO's?
Top