Retired Cops not subject to restrictions on guns?

[Lalakai]

I'm not disagreeing with you that former LEO may have a higher risk due to their chosen profession. If Cuomo and Bloomberg agree that "7 rounds is enough to protect anyone" (parahrasing) then why isn't it enough for Retired LEO? They're not more likely to encounter more than 7 threats at a time so much as there are more individuals looking to do them harm. Why are they afforded 3, or 8 more opportunities to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones when citizens who MAY face the same threats are handicapped in their ability to do the same?

I know you agree that there should be no restrictions, we're not arguing about that point. I'm still having trouble understanding why my life is not as valuable in the eyes of the STATE...

....preaching to choir on this whole issue. I'm definitely not supportive of what or why they are doing this. Most of this is emotional based, with both sides very inventive on "these are the facts that best support my case." I don't support what Cuoma or Bloomberg are doing but I do recognize and support the fact that LEOs are a different situational group. Do they deserve special treatment/privileges? Yes (my opinion). Should the average citizen have the same choices (firearms, mag capacity) that are available to LEOs........yes. What special treatments/privileges am I refering to?? lol, whole different thread but yes it would still be "G" rated (for those of you too addicted to the 900 number phone conversations).

 

[Tom]

No dummy, my point is that just because someone was a cop, or military doesn't mean they are any more qualified to carry a firearm than civilian, it is something that has to be taken on a case by case basis.

That would be impractical and wouldn't leave us with prefectiion since whatever means you use to come to a perfect conclusion is going to be created and implemented by human beings.

btw, as far as your and others manner of speaking, I don't take it personally but consider it a reflection of your upbringing, maturity, and self-control.

 

[piasabird]

Probably a lot of retired cops that work in private security. I also imagine that as a police officer some people may not like being arrested and thrown in jail.

 

[piasabird]

If it is good enough to disarm civilians then disarm the cops.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

7 rounds is arbitrary and draconian. We're losing sight of that. A substantial number of guns which by no measure are "assault weapons" will become illegal. We're going to have a lot of criminals as a result, but it's not they which deserve punishment.

 

[xj0hnx]

That would be impractical and wouldn't leave us with prefectiion since whatever means you use to come to a perfect conclusion is going to be created and implemented by human beings.

btw, as far as your and others manner of speaking, I don't take it personally but consider it a reflection of your upbringing, maturity, and self-control.

So, you get my point, you just don't want to apply it to firearms because it goes against your agenda, got it.

 

[Lithium381]

If it is good enough to disarm civilians then disarm the cops.

My thought for "should we do this" on gun control is ask yourself this: If we were to do this to our general infantry in the army(or even SWAT teams), would they be at a significant disadvantage to those wishing to do them harm? If so, then we shouldn't do it to our citizens.... no, i don't think every citizen should have nukes, but we should be allowed to arm ourselves as well as the standard issue for our counterparts in the military. . .

 

[momeNt]

Probably a lot of retired cops that work in private security. I also imagine that as a police officer some people may not like being arrested and thrown in jail.

So the non-ex-cops that work in private security are forced to be less safe though?

 

[Tom]

So, you get my point, you just don't want to apply it to firearms because it goes against your agenda, got it.

No, I agree with your point that case by case is a more sure way to evaluate an individuals' suitability and training for most anything, including firearms.

But I don't think that means that there aren't generalities we can rely on as well.

I don't necessarily agree with the restrictions on civilians in this law, my point is I think there's a rational basis for excluding the people are excluded.

But I agree with you it still should require some kind of evaluation on an individual basis, but I assume that happens as personnel go through their career.

 

[Lalakai]

No, I agree with your point that case by case is a more sure way to evaluate an individuals' suitability and training for most anything, including firearms.

This has been tried before and the method was severely abused at the local level. If the people on the gun board knew you and you were in the right crowd, you were good. Otherwise you were F'd. Some gun boards used the blanket approach and denied the permits to everyone, while the next county over if you weren't a felon, no mental history, no domestics, you were granted permits. No, we suffered through this process in Michigan for years, and going back to a case-by-case basis would be a disaster. Lol as soon as it became law that if a person was denied a CPL, there had to be a specific reason, many gun boards lost long time members who no longer wanted to be there due to the fact that they would now have to defend their reasoning as to why they denied the permit.

The only possible situation I might support a case-by-case eval is when it applies to individuals in a broad group, ex: felons. There are situations where those individuals may be able to articulate and support their request with information that would be acceptable. Please don't ask me to define "what type of information", I just used this as an example.

Overall though, these recent situations have had an unintended consequence of making most gun owners realize their "gun rights" are not a given, and sometimes need to be fought for. At the same point, as the discussions continue even the most ardent gun supporters are realizing how complex the issues are. It's also becoming more clear to everyone except the politicians, that the first thing we need to do is start enforcing the laws already on the books...................kind'a like immigration should be approached (oops, did i say that?)

 

[Smoblikat]

Cops kill more people than civilians, why not ban them from having guns?

 

[Tom]

This has been tried before and the method was severely abused at the local level. If the people on the gun board knew you and you were in the right crowd, you were good. Otherwise you were F'd. Some gun boards used the blanket approach and denied the permits to everyone, while the next county over if you weren't a felon, no mental history, no domestics, you were granted permits. No, we suffered through this process in Michigan for years, and going back to a case-by-case basis would be a disaster. Lol as soon as it became law that if a person was denied a CPL, there had to be a specific reason, many gun boards lost long time members who no longer wanted to be there due to the fact that they would now have to defend their reasoning as to why they denied the permit.

The only possible situation I might support a case-by-case eval is when it applies to individuals in a broad group, ex: felons. There are situations where those individuals may be able to articulate and support their request with information that would be acceptable. Please don't ask me to define "what type of information", I just used this as an example.

Overall though, these recent situations have had an unintended consequence of making most gun owners realize their "gun rights" are not a given, and sometimes need to be fought for. At the same point, as the discussions continue even the most ardent gun supporters are realizing how complex the issues are. It's also becoming more clear to everyone except the politicians, that the first thing we need to do is start enforcing the laws already on the books...................kind'a like immigration should be approached (oops, did i say that?)

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make about trying to achieve perfection by case by case.

Because the evaluators are just as flawed as any other humans.