Law Enforcement Exemptions Unconstitutional?

[jgoose71 0]

Happy New Year! Let's start off with a question that has been nagging at me.

Do you think that Firearms exemptions for law enforcement written into just about every gun law ever written are constitutional?

Some things to consider:

1. The firearm that was used to kill Katharine Stienle was stolen from a police officer.
2. Secret Service agents have left there firearms in bathrooms.
3. Retired Police officers have lost their marbles and shot up movie theaters.
4. Laquan McDonald might still be alive if cops magazine sizes were restricted.

Point being, cops are people too, and not immune to mistakes.

Consider also that I keep hearing that the average american citizen does not need an AR-15 for self defense. A six shooter revolver or lever action 30-30 is supposed to be plenty, so a Police Officer, who is supposed to be well trained with these items should be more than plenty?

They say that a person "open carrying" in the streets could cause an undue disturbance. Do you think that an armed police officer causes undue disturbances in the black community? They can still carry but must comply with all applicable conceal carry laws for your average citizen.

Please keep in mind, as the saying goes, "Assault weapons are weapons of war." So why do our politicians need to be surrounded by them? Are they going to go to war with the American people or something? Do our politicians deserve more firepower that your average citizen? If so, I would seriously like to hear the "Class Warfare/ Social Justice/ Equality for all" crowd tell me why the political elite are more deserving of protection than your average everyday person.

On the Second Amendment, it was founded with the idea that the government could not oppress/ enslave the people. So do you think that it's right that the government is able to outgun the general public? Especially, as you see in the media, there is the law enforcement war on blacks? What about all there hand-me-downs from the military?

And on a personal level, I think that removing law enforcement exemptions (seeing that this would directly effect politicians) would finally give an honest debate to what is truly needed for personal protection.

Just my $.02. Fire away (not literally....)

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

I forgot to add:

And yes, I do think that Law Enforcement Exemptions are unconstitutional. They create a 2 tiered system elevating a constitutionally protected right of one class (government officials) over another class (everyone else).

Once again, just my $.02

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Please keep in mind, as the saying goes, "Assault weapons are weapons of war." So why do our politicians need to be surrounded by them? Are they going to go to war with the American people or something? Do our politicians deserve more firepower that your average citizen? If so, I would seriously like to hear the "Class Warfare/ Social Justice/ Equality for all" crowd tell me why the political elite are more deserving of protection than your average everyday person.

You're trying to take aim at a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

The people arguing for stricter gun laws are usually the same people arguing against the militarization and over-arming of the police.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[piisfish 135]

I voted

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[jgoose71 0]

jakee

Quote

Please keep in mind, as the saying goes, "Assault weapons are weapons of war." So why do our politicians need to be surrounded by them? Are they going to go to war with the American people or something? Do our politicians deserve more firepower that your average citizen? If so, I would seriously like to hear the "Class Warfare/ Social Justice/ Equality for all" crowd tell me why the political elite are more deserving of protection than your average everyday person.

You're trying to take aim at a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

The people arguing for stricter gun laws are usually the same people arguing against the militarization and over-arming of the police.

Not really. It's the unholy alliance between the police unions and the Democrats that want to give bazooka's and MWRAPS to the Police... For their safety.

Which once again begs the question, why is it required for their safety and not ours? Civilians are the first one on the scene and often have to fend for them selves until the police arrive....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kallend 1,634]

jgoose71

***

Quote

Please keep in mind, as the saying goes, "Assault weapons are weapons of war." So why do our politicians need to be surrounded by them? Are they going to go to war with the American people or something? Do our politicians deserve more firepower that your average citizen? If so, I would seriously like to hear the "Class Warfare/ Social Justice/ Equality for all" crowd tell me why the political elite are more deserving of protection than your average everyday person.

You're trying to take aim at a hypocrisy that doesn't exist.

The people arguing for stricter gun laws are usually the same people arguing against the militarization and over-arming of the police.

Not really. It's the unholy alliance between the police unions and the Democrats that want to give bazooka's and MWRAPS to the Police... For their safety.

..

You must live in a different universe than most of us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Not really. It's the unholy alliance between the police unions and the Democrats that want to give bazooka's and MWRAPS to the Police... For their safety.

So all the 'law and order' republicans should be voting democrat then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[cvfd1399 0]

Can you cite some of these "exemptions"? I am not sure what you are talking about.

[jgoose71 0]

jakee

Quote

Not really. It's the unholy alliance between the police unions and the Democrats that want to give bazooka's and MWRAPS to the Police... For their safety.

So all the 'law and order' republicans should be voting democrat then?

Follow the bouncing ball dude....

Q: What is the job of a Union?

Incase you don't know, read the answer below:

A: To protect the worker (their client) and to assure the best working conditions possible for him.

Now answer the following questions on your own to test your deductive reasoning:

Q: What obligation does the police union have to everyday people?

Q: So how does this work out when the job being protected is to oppress the people?

Q: Who do unions give the most money too and why?

Q: Do you think it's an accident that the largest police forces belong to places like California, Chicago, and New York?

And the Coupe de Grace--- Q: Who do the Chiefs of Police for these large forces answer to? (Hint: not the people)

And as I said before, these are the people you want to cut out special constitutional rights (exceptions) for.

And law and order republicans generally like to have the same rights as the police and have the police answerable to the people (as in the case of elected county sherifs). It's a lot easier to work with someone (in this case the the public working with the police) when you can look them in the eye and NOT being looked down upon from their lofty position to which they can shit all over you....

just saying'.....

The reason I really posted this thread is because I had just read about the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

How is it that after 10 years of service an Officer gets a special badge that allows him to carry in any of the 50 states? When he retires, he is no longer an officer and no longer has arrest authority.

More over how is it that he gets rights above retired military? Some of which who have spent 20 years maintaining firearms qualifications, have trained relentlessly in threat assessment, escalation of force, and rules of engagement, retired honorably, have been vetted by the VA as not having TBI or PTSD or any other mental problem, and have wrote a check to the US to be cashed as needed for up to and including their life in it's defense?

How are these people any less deserving? How are their constitutional rights tiered under that of a police officer?

And that is not the only example out there. Any exemption from a law for public officials I believe is unconstitutional.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

cvfd1399

Can you cite some of these "exemptions"? I am not sure what you are talking about.

Read the last half of my post above....

Edited to also read:

See also any CCW law in the us (Law enforcement exemptions) also what police are allowed to use to protect themselves as compared to the general public.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Q: Do you think it's an accident that the largest police forces belong to places like California, Chicago, and New York?

California, the largest state and New York, the largest city? Gee I don't know Mr Goose, why do those places have the largest police forces?

Quote

And law and order republicans generally like to have the same rights as the police and have the police answerable to the people (as in the case of elected county sherifs).

Then there isn't a single law and order Republican on this forum.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jgoose71 0]

jakee

Quote

Q: Do you think it's an accident that the largest police forces belong to places like California, Chicago, and New York?

California, the largest state and New York, the largest city? Gee I don't know Mr Goose, why do those places have the largest police forces?

So the unholy alliance between liberal politicians and public sector unions in these towns where politicians vote pay raises and more equipment and more rights to them in exchange for campaign donations from collected taxes doesn't exist? Liberal Politicians haven't fought tooth and nail to keep public sector workers from opting out of unions?

Whew!!!!! Thanks for clearing that up, I thought I was going crazy....

jakee

Quote

And law and order republicans generally like to have the same rights as the police and have the police answerable to the people (as in the case of elected county sherifs).

Then there isn't a single law and order Republican on this forum.

Sir, you wound me. What am I? Chopped liver? And what is wrong with having your police force answerable to the people instead of politicians?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

So the unholy alliance between liberal politicians and public sector unions in these towns where politicians vote pay raises and more equipment and more rights to them in exchange for campaign donations from collected taxes doesn't exist? Liberal Politicians haven't fought tooth and nail to keep public sector workers from opting out of unions?

Sorry, I don't see how that's an answer as to why the largest cities have the largest police departments?

Quote

And what is wrong with having your police force answerable to the people instead of politicians?

Well, what does that actually mean?

Propose a mechanism for police answering directly to the people...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jgoose71 0]

jakee

Quote

So the unholy alliance between liberal politicians and public sector unions in these towns where politicians vote pay raises and more equipment and more rights to them in exchange for campaign donations from collected taxes doesn't exist? Liberal Politicians haven't fought tooth and nail to keep public sector workers from opting out of unions?

Sorry, I don't see how that's an answer as to why the largest cities have the largest police departments?

Quote

And what is wrong with having your police force answerable to the people instead of politicians?

Well, what does that actually mean?

Propose a mechanism for police answering directly to the people...

I understand you are coming from across the pond and may not be familiar with "all things American" so I'll help you out a little....

Replace "largest cities" with "liberal cities with politicians backed by public sector unions" and then you will start to see the correlation.....

With city police forces the police chief is appointed by the mayor. The chiefs only concern is to keep the mayor (a politician) happy. Sherifs in the US are elected officials. To keep their job they have to actually get out and meet the people to see how things are going. Actually develop a relationship with the community. Something that doesn't alway happen with police chiefs.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[gowlerk 1,915]

Quote

Replace "largest cities" with "liberal cities with politicians backed by public sector unions" and then you will start to see the correlation.....

Liberal cities? Like Dallas? Or Houston? Or Peoria. Il? By your standard pretty much every American city is "Liberal".

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Replace "largest cities" with "liberal cities with politicians backed by public sector unions" and then you will start to see the correlation.....

So you think the largest cities in the us have the largest police forces because they're liberal, not because they're the largest?

Quote

With city police forces the police chief is appointed by the mayor. The chiefs only concern is to keep the mayor (a politician) happy. Sherifs in the US are elected officials. To keep their job they have to actually get out and meet the people to see how things are going. Actually develop a relationship with the community. Something that doesn't alway happen with police chiefs.

How do you build a relationship with a couple of million people?

Try electing Sherriffs in a constituency that size and you get Joe Arpaio.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jgoose71 0]

gowlerk

Quote

Replace "largest cities" with "liberal cities with politicians backed by public sector unions" and then you will start to see the correlation.....

Liberal cities? Like Dallas? Or Houston? Or Peoria. Il? By your standard pretty much every American city is "Liberal".

Yes, a lot of your large cities do have liberal mayors. How do you think they got money for their elections?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

jakee

Quote

With city police forces the police chief is appointed by the mayor. The chiefs only concern is to keep the mayor (a politician) happy. Sherifs in the US are elected officials. To keep their job they have to actually get out and meet the people to see how things are going. Actually develop a relationship with the community. Something that doesn't alway happen with police chiefs.

How do you build a relationship with a couple of million people?

Try electing Sherriffs in a constituency that size and you get Joe Arpaio.

And strangely enough, the people of his county are happy and the criminals are the ones complaining. If you don't like it, well tough shit, you don't live there.

And it you did you could always try to vote him out and replace him with someone better.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,404]

>You must live in a different universe than most of us.

Give him a few more posts. He will blame Obama and things will be back to normal (Speaker's Corner style.)

[cvfd1399 0]

It's not a badge it is a retirement commission and is labeled as such. It is a piece of paper that allows you reciprocity for CCW. You still can't carry in places like New York so it's not some super special thing that allows you to do anything.

So what it allows all 50 states, if you live in my state you get somewhere like 40/50 already due to existing public CCW reciprocity agreements already

Another note is Louisiana CCW accepts a dd214 to exempt prior military from qualifying at the range no matter how long they have been out. This is just as bad and no different than your gripe above and already is law in many states.

It seems you just caught wind of something that ruffeled your feathers before you did some research.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

And strangely enough, the people of his county are happy and the criminals are the ones complaining. If you don't like it, well tough shit, you don't live there.

Well, people that are happy with Arpaio probably include the criminals who instead of going to jail got some of the $150M in costs and damages his office has had to pay out due to misconduct over the years.

Some of the people unhappy with him probably include victims of rape and child molestation that his office can't be bothered to investigate even when there's a clear suspect. Or the presumed innocent pre-trial inmates held in conditions designed to punish them. Or the political opponents he abused his office to persecute. Or the guy (and I can't even believe this is true) who spent 4 years in jail accused of trying to kill Arapio in a phony conspiracy that Arpaio's own office invented.

But I guess it's as they say, the people get the government they deserve.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[normiss 622]

The acceptance of the DD-214 to obtain a CWP in a number of states does not "exempt" anything.
It is certified proof from a government agency that the individual has successfully completed weapons training and has actually been required to qualify at a gun range.

Significantly a higher standard that the 4 hour "class".

[cvfd1399 0]

So you are fine with someone with a dd214 after leaving nam in 69' and never picking up a weapon since then to get a CCW in 2016 because they had "weapons training" 40+ years ago??

[normiss 622]

That is not what I said.

Don't attempt to extrapolate unrelated perspective in something someone says.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

The acceptance of the DD-214 to obtain a CWP in a number of states does not "exempt" anything.
It is certified proof from a government agency that the individual has successfully completed weapons training and has actually been required to qualify at a gun range.
Wink
Significantly a higher standard that the 4 hour "class".

Your bolded part implies the government training is sufficient to replace the CCW class, and even exceeds it.

Does this not include the Vietnam vet?? You now know your comment was not well thought out, quit squirming and accept it.. Smh