Retired Cops not subject to restrictions on guns?

[Lithium381]

Retired police and sometimes military are NOT subject to the same bans on firearms and ammunition that "normal" citizens are subject to.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-control-fails-rationality-test/article/2519971

The same can be said for New York's law limiting handguns to seven rounds, while allowing both active and retired police officers to keep their handguns that hold up to 15 rounds. If retired cops need 15 rounds to effectively protect themselves and others, then so do other citizens. Arbitrarily discriminating among Americans in this way is irrational and unconstitutional.

Do "normal" citizens not face the same dangerous criminals? Continued class warfare. See new sig for Olympic Arms view...

 

[Doppel]

I don't believe NY has states that retired cops will be allowed more than 7 though there may be desires by the state to allow it so that they have support of the police. It is patently unfair and almost certainly unconstitutional. Even allowing law enforcement, active, more than civilians is unfair but retired particularly so since there is nothin to separate their needs of defense to anybody else.

 

[monovillage]

It's part of the price the anti-gunners pay to continue to have support from some of the police organizations (NAPO, IACP) you'll also see that when police officers do break the law and get arrested for it the District Attorneys will usually plea bargain their cases down to a level that won't impact their gun possession rights. Especially in cases of domestic violence and brandishing/menacing.
You wouldn't want to take gun rights away from domestically violent, gun brandishing LAPD officers now would we?

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-29/local/me-53512_1_domestic-abuse

 

[Tom]

Retired police and sometimes military are NOT subject to the same bans on firearms and ammunition that "normal" citizens are subject to.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-control-fails-rationality-test/article/2519971



Do "normal" citizens not face the same dangerous criminals? Continued class warfare. See new sig for Olympic Arms view...

We(normal people) aren't at war with the police or the military. There's a perfectly valid reason for the exception, training.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

We(normal people) aren't at war with the police or the military. There's a perfectly valid reason for the exception, training.

I'm not sure if you have been watching the news lately but one thing recent events have shown us is the average cop is hardly well trained when it comes to firearms.

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure if you have been watching the news lately but one thing recent events have shown us is the average cop is hardly well trained when it comes to firearms.

Its difficult to express how completely I disagree with you.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Do "normal" citizens not face the same dangerous criminals? Continued class warfare. See new sig for Olympic Arms view...

The simple answer to this question is no, they do not. Not many "normal" citizens are directly responsible for gang members, drug dealers, murders etc... being put in prison. The playing field in that regard is not level.

 

[Lithium381]

The simple answer to this question is no, they do not. Not many "normal" citizens are directly responsible for gang members, drug dealers, murders etc... being put in prison. The playing field in that regard is not level.

I acknowledge that ON DUTY cops do have a higher level of exposure from their duty. I'm talking about either off-duty or even RETIRED.

Are you talking about criminals having grudges against officers in general or even the specific one that put them away?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I acknowledge that ON DUTY cops do have a higher level of exposure from their duty. I'm talking about either off-duty or even RETIRED.

Are you talking about criminals having grudges against officers in general or even the specific one that put them away?

Absolutely I am. I still cringe when I'm in the community I used to work in. People do hold grudges. Some more than others.

That being said do I think it's absolutely necessary to have those type of exceptions? No, not in most cases. But the possible risk IS, in my experience, above those of any "normal" citizen.

 

[BoberFett]

We(normal people) aren't at war with the police or the military. There's a perfectly valid reason for the exception, training.

The kind of training that causes a group of cops to empty their magazines into a truck in LA at random without knowing who's inside, and missing their targets many times.

Yeah, that's some great training.

Ignoramuses like you believe there's some sort of magical training these people go through which puts them in a different league than a civilian. There isn't.

Its difficult to express how completely I disagree with you.

It's difficult to express how little your opinion is based on reality.

 

[Darwin333]

We(normal people) aren't at war with the police or the military.

lol, tell that to the people in Cali.

There's a perfectly valid reason for the exception, training.

Oh really? Do you know how much training an ACTIVE DUTY police officer is required to take yearly to carry his gun? Hell, lets just look at the results, how many shots were fired at the (wrong) truck in Cali? How many hits on the (wrong) targets? Do you think those hits were pure luck or training and skill?

 

[Lithium381]

Absolutely I am. I still cringe when I'm in the community I used to work in. People do hold grudges. Some more than others.

That being said do I think it's absolutely necessary to have those type of exceptions? No, not in most cases. But the possible risk IS, in my experience, above those of any "normal" citizen.

I see the point you're making, and think that it's valid that maybe there is a potential for higher risk. But that's not to say people don't hold grudges for people other than cops. Deranged jealous boyfriends or someone who felt slighted by a lack of respec because you looked the wrong way, or even accidentally ended up on the wrong street at the wrong time.

 

[xj0hnx]

Its difficult to express how completely I disagree with you.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

 

[Darwin333]

The simple answer to this question is no, they do not. Not many "normal" citizens are directly responsible for gang members, drug dealers, murders etc... being put in prison. The playing field in that regard is not level.

So? What if I call the cops on a bunch of gang members? Do I get the same ability to defend myself if they should retaliate? If not, why?

 

[Darwin333]

Its difficult to express how completely I disagree with you.

AFAIK the term "contagious fire" was invented for the police. That is where one cop starts shooting and other cops in the area start shooting in the same direction regardless if they can see a threat or target or not. It would be trivially easy to pull up hundreds of cases of absurd numbers of shots fired with an absurdly low hit rate by LEO.

When the shit hits the fan they aren't much better (if ANY better) than your average joe who goes to the range a few times a year. The difference is when they fuck up they generally do it in groups which means multiple big scary hi-cap mags being unloaded instead of just one.

 

[monovillage]

Absolutely I am. I still cringe when I'm in the community I used to work in. People do hold grudges. Some more than others.

That being said do I think it's absolutely necessary to have those type of exceptions? No, not in most cases. But the possible risk IS, in my experience, above those of any "normal" citizen.

Then let those retired police officers that want the added security have to apply and prove themselves just like any other citizen does to get a CCW. Why should they be above and exempt from the same laws everyone else has to follow? Why should they continue to have special privileges that no other citizen has?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Then let those retired police officers that want the added security have to apply and prove themselves just like any other citizen does to get a CCW. Why should they be above and exempt from the same laws everyone else has to follow? Why should they continue to have special privileges that no other citizen has?

Did I argue they should? Reading comprehension fail on your part?

 

[monovillage]

Did I argue they should? Reading comprehension fail on your part?

You said "not in most cases" which would seem to me to support some continued special exemptions.

 

[Theb]

There is overlap between leos duty and personal weapons. Some departments require officers to purchase their weapons some departments issue weapons, but allow officers to purchase additional/different weapons. I don't think an officer should have to surrender a gun they've used for years when they retire.

I don't think the 7 round limit makes any sense, but I do think this exemption makes sense.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You said "not in most cases" which would seem to me to support some continued special exemptions.

Theb already beat me to an example I would have given. Overall I don't think it's necessary.

 

[Lithium381]

There is overlap between leos duty and personal weapons. Some departments require officers to purchase their weapons some departments issue weapons, but allow officers to purchase additional/different weapons. I don't think an officer should have to surrender a gun they've used for years when they retire.

I don't think the 7 round limit makes any sense, but I do think this exemption makes sense.

Nobody is asking them to, just like NY isn't asking the citizens to give up their guns. . . We're talking about restricting the to 7rds just like their civilian counterparts.

Also if they were ISSUED a gun they shouldn't get to keep it, it belongs to the state.

 

[monovillage]

Nobody is asking them to, just like NY isn't asking the citizens to give up their guns. . . We're talking about restricting the to 7rds just like their civilian counterparts.

Also if they were ISSUED a gun they shouldn't get to keep it, it belongs to the state.

I see no problem with the LEO being able to purchase his/her duty weapon when they retire.

 

[Lithium381]

I see no problem with the LEO being able to purchase his/her duty weapon when they retire.

That's fine by me as well. . . but they should have to buy reduced capacity magazines... because isn't that the point of the bill/law? If law abiding citizens(cops toO!) get rid of all of their standard capacity magazines, then its impossible for the criminals to get their hands on them and we'll see no measurable difference in murders?


Cops in other states(CA) for example can buy weapons for personal use that are banned for normal civilians. . . why? THey're not using it on-duty, they're owning them OUTSIDE of their job. . .

 

[Tom]

lol, tell that to the people in Cali.



Oh really? Do you know how much training an ACTIVE DUTY police officer is required to take yearly to carry his gun? Hell, lets just look at the results, how many shots were fired at the (wrong) truck in Cali? How many hits on the (wrong) targets? Do you think those hits were pure luck or training and skill?

There are well over a million law enforcement and military personnel.

So your point about an individual incident, is pointless.

 

[Zebo]

Our police dept uses civilians to train law enforcement in firearms so I'm not sure about better trained. I'm sure there are some cops who are better trained some civilians. It wasn't put there because of training anyway it was put there so they could get support of police unions who don't want their retired members unarmed.

Anyway I wouldn't worry about law going anywhere. No one is registering or abiding by it in addition to what SC said makes it a non law. I don't know why states waste their money with this.