GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 11:46   #251
njl
Senior Member
 
njl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 9,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiremanMike View Post
I read a headline that several firearm/accessory manufacturers (Olympic arms and larue included) were supposedly refusing to sell to cops in states where politicians are passing stricter gun laws.

Is this true?

Why the hell are they punishing the cops who have nothing to do with these political games?
They're not punishing the cops. It's a mix of political statement and CYA. The new law in NY was rushed through so quickly, they forgot to exempt law enforcement from it. As a manufacturer, would you ship products banned by state law, on the word of the governor saying "this law won't apply to the police"? You'd be setting your company up for future prosecution if the governor "felt like it."

Also, it's much simpler to company-wide say "we don't ship to NY anymore" than keep track of which states anyone can order your products and which only certain classes (government agencies, officers personally purchasing with departmental approval, etc.).
__________________
what guns?
Lifetime GSSF & NRA.
njl is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:51   #252
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
According to the US Legal dictionary
A US Legal dictionary is not a common-use dictionary. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of terms used in that dictionary that aren't heard outside of written - not even oral - legal briefs. That doesn't make them common.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
"The only argument - the ONLY argument - you've made contrary to this is that "I don't like it, so I say it's not true!""
The argument that I made earlier, that you either missed or ignored, is that under the Law of War (Geneva Conventions), there are only combatants and civilians. This is the definition that I have lived over half of my life with.
But the Geneva Conventions don't apply to ANYONE outside of the military. My Geneva Convention card expired. So, again, you're taking a specific and specialized definition and saying it's the only thing you'll accept because you WANT to.

You're still stomping your feet and throwing a fit rather than admitting that your OPINION is not the same thing as a FACT.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:55   #253
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 392
"What are the reasons behind the difference in 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights. Explain them one at a time, please."

Our 1st Amendment right is limited in order to maintain discipline and not foster insubordination. Speaking out against your leadership can be punished by up to 9 months confinement.

The 2nd Amendment right doesn't exist if you live in the barracks. All firearms must be registered within 72 hours of being bought, or after moving to post and they must be stored in the unit's arms room. If you live on post housing, you may keep your firearms, but they still must be registered. If you live off post (thanks to that A-hole in FT Hood), your weapons still need to be registered on post and your command may come to your home to inspect them.

The 4th Amendment right does not exist on post. The Commander can direct searches of your vehicle, barracks or quarters at any time without a warrant, this includes having the dogs go through your living area. The command may conduct a "health and welfare" check of your residence off post as well.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:59   #254
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 392
"You're still stomping your feet and throwing a fit rather than admitting that your OPINION is not the same thing as a FACT." My opinion is based on the laws I fall under. You are stomping your feet and saying that the dictionary is your legal proof, which it is far from. I have cited the legal definition and told you the accepted international law, but you cling to your "common use" excuse. "Ain't" is in common use in many parts of the country and in the dictionary, but that doesn't make it correct.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:05   #255
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,583
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
If you would have read (or comprehended) some of my earlier posts, I have said that I admire and respect the police.
But you are comfortable belittling them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
I know that their job is thankless and stressful, but there is a world of difference between the military and the other citizens of the US.
Just as there is a difference between those in law enforcement and those who do not choose the profession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
To ignore or belittle that difference is insulting and offensive to many of us in the military.
Sir, may I point out that no one in this thread has spoken one word that belittles the military. No one has insulted the military. That is all coming from you, your projections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
You've worn both uniforms, but that fact seems to have escaped you.
I've worn the uniform of our Country, proudly. I have known and do know one hell of a lot of cops. Never, in 40+ years of working with LE, never ever have I heard one demean, belittle, insult, or degrade members of the military.

You have a myopic viewpoint where everything outside of the military is not anyway as important as you are.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:06   #256
Southswede
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me View Post
Again you have no answer.
Of course I don't!! How would I possibly answer an unasked question?
Southswede is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:12   #257
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,583
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Warcry, I did some research of the actual legal meaning of "civilian" and your Webster quote falls short. According to the US Legal dictionary, "Civilian is a person not serving in military or a person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity. Any activity pursued by an ordinary citizen can be called a civilian pursuit."
Thank you. Law Enforcement is a specific group engaged in a very particular activity. Therefore, they are not civilians.

__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:14   #258
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
To ignore or belittle that difference is insulting and offensive to many of us in the military. You've worn both uniforms, but that fact seems to have escaped you.
Sorry, I missed this until Russ quoted it. You're making assumptions based on no facts that are present.

First of all, if you think I would ever insult the military as a whole, you're out of your mind. I would never say a bad thing about the military if you put a gun to my head. However, that courtesy doesn't extend individually. While there is nothing but the utmost respect for the military, that's not any defense from individual members being absolute ******s. I've known plenty in my time.

Secondly, you seem to believe that I'm only making this argument because I am or was a cop. Never have been, and never will be at this point (too old). I'd never be able to calmly deal with domestics, car accidents with kids, arresting a mom in front of a kid....



....or dealing daily with people who think they know better than you because they live life by their own definitions rather than in the same reality as everyone else.

No, I've never been a cop. I'm a civilian.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:15   #259
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Thank you. Law Enforcement is a specific group engaged in a very particular activity. Therefore, they are not civilians.
Agreed. I will accept the US legal definition. I can evolve and I can do so without having to use too many snide remarks.
Of course, this all started because someone got butt hurt over my use of the term "civi". Hell, I have used it for nearly two decades now. I've never heard anyone get offended by it until yesterday. Too much sand in some people's crack I guess.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:17   #260
Travclem
Lifetime Membership
Badass Member
 
Travclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 6,443
I guess some don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
__________________
Sent from a payphone in a whorehouse in Mexico.
__________________
Travclem is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:23   #261
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,583
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
"What are the reasons behind the difference in 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights. Explain them one at a time, please."

Our 1st Amendment right is limited in order to maintain discipline and not foster insubordination. Speaking out against your leadership can be punished by up to 9 months confinement.

The 2nd Amendment right doesn't exist if you live in the barracks. All firearms must be registered within 72 hours of being bought, or after moving to post and they must be stored in the unit's arms room. If you live on post housing, you may keep your firearms, but they still must be registered. If you live off post (thanks to that A-hole in FT Hood), your weapons still need to be registered on post and your command may come to your home to inspect them.

The 4th Amendment right does not exist on post. The Commander can direct searches of your vehicle, barracks or quarters at any time without a warrant, this includes having the dogs go through your living area. The command may conduct a "health and welfare" check of your residence off post as well.
Thank you....

And those conditions are established by your contract, correct? They are contractual obligations.

Those in law enforcement have similar 1st Amendment restrictions. In the military, there are grievance processes that do allow you to voice concerns about your leadership, speak out against them, correct? Same holds true in LE. There may be career consequences in either job.

Military 2nd Amendment restrictions may soon be equaled by NY State. Are there efforts ongoing to change the restrictions in the military?

The 4th Amendment is suspended.

But, I asked for the reasons behind these restrictions. You answered that for the 1st Amendment, but not the other two. Why are the restrictions on 2nd Amendment Rights greater in the military?

Why are 4th Amendment Rights pretty much suspended?

Thanks.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:26   #262
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,583
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Agreed. I will accept the US legal definition. I can evolve and I can do so without having to use too many snide remarks.
Good...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Of course, this all started because someone got butt hurt over my use of the term "civi". Hell, I have used it for nearly two decades now. I've never heard anyone get offended by it until yesterday. Too much sand in some people's crack I guess.
It is the attitude with which you are using the term and the attitude you display while discussing the matter. Perhaps everyone needs to shake their shorts to dislodge some sand.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:28   #263
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,583
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
No, I've never been a cop. I'm a civilian.
Me, too...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:51   #264
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 392
"Why are the restrictions on 2nd Amendment Rights greater in the military?"
Because we have too many 18 year old's who can't be trusted with their own johnson's let alone weapons. Alcoholism is extremely high in the military and making it harder for Joe to get a hold of guns while drunk is probably a good thing.

The 4th Amendment limits come from the fact that the military owns everything on post. The housing is not your house. You do not pay for it, the military does. They reserve the right to ensure that you are not trashing the place. The barracks are of common use and therefor, your privacy is nonexistent. The Commander, or his designate, can conduct a check at any time. If the Commander suspects drug use, he will call in the dogs and if he finds something, he has many options on how to punish you that don't involve due process. The Commander is protected by regulations concerning command policy and military authority.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 13:05   #265
FiremanMike
Way too busy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
"Why are the restrictions on 2nd Amendment Rights greater in the military?"
Because we have too many 18 year old's who can't be trusted with their own johnson's let alone weapons. Alcoholism is extremely high in the military and making it harder for Joe to get a hold of guns while drunk is probably a good thing.
I just wanted to quote this because I think it'll come into play later and I don't really want it lost..
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ateamer
They made bad choices and expect us to pay the price? I don't think so, Tim.
FiremanMike is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 13:08   #266
Deerjager
Senior Member
 
Deerjager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 152
To the OP, who do you think will enforce the unconstitutional laws? Well, beside the Federal storm troopers, the LEOs.
Deerjager is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 13:20   #267
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 392
Further on gun restrictions on post, per AR 190-11, if you are allowed to keep your firearm in your quarters (Commander's approval first), it must be locked up and kept separate from ammunition, that is locked up as well. If you want to draw your gun from the arms room, you must have permission from the Commander first. You cannot transport a loaded gun on post and you are only authorized to drive it to the range or hunting grounds on post. Our rules sound more like those in Canada than in America.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 13:31   #268
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,872
I just got an email from J&G saying they will be applying any new gun restrictions to law enforcement agencies that operate within the boundaries of the state or local government that applied them.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 13:32   #269
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiremanMike View Post
I just wanted to quote this because I think it'll come into play later and I don't really want it lost..
Why? Do you not agree that not letting drunk Soldiers play with guns is a good thing? If not, then you don't know Joe.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.

Last edited by jay1975; 02-20-2013 at 13:34..
jay1975 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 14:14   #270
BB61
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiremanMike View Post
I read a headline that several firearm/accessory manufacturers (Olympic arms and larue included) were supposedly refusing to sell to cops in states where politicians are passing stricter gun laws.

Is this true?

Why the hell are they punishing the cops who have nothing to do with these political games?

Because LEO are no better than American Citizens. If we are restricted then they should be too. Their lives and their families are no more important than mine.
BB61 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 14:17   #271
BB61
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
"What are the reasons behind the difference in 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment Rights. Explain them one at a time, please."

Our 1st Amendment right is limited in order to maintain discipline and not foster insubordination. Speaking out against your leadership can be punished by up to 9 months confinement.

The 2nd Amendment right doesn't exist if you live in the barracks. All firearms must be registered within 72 hours of being bought, or after moving to post and they must be stored in the unit's arms room. If you live on post housing, you may keep your firearms, but they still must be registered. If you live off post (thanks to that A-hole in FT Hood), your weapons still need to be registered on post and your command may come to your home to inspect them.

The 4th Amendment right does not exist on post. The Commander can direct searches of your vehicle, barracks or quarters at any time without a warrant, this includes having the dogs go through your living area. The command may conduct a "health and welfare" check of your residence off post as well.
Not exactly correct off post officers at least.
BB61 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 14:25   #272
BB61
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
Do you not think that cops have to deal with the same idiots they arrest on duty while off duty? Do you not think they are at quite a bit more risk for retailiation from these guys? What about states/agencies that REQUIRE officers (by law or policy) to take action, even when "off duty", when certain actions occur in their presence?
So. An LEO is no better than me and mine. Almost anybody can come up with reasons why they should be considered special. IMHO, the only special classification is whether you are a US citizen or not. I also don't care if they are required to carry a weapon off duty. I am an officer of the court, I have passed numerous background checks, I have at least as much training as any patrol officer and have shot against SWAT officers and held my own. There is no logical reason for LEO to be considered special over me. This isn't Nazi Germany -- yet (I recently talked with a former neighbor who grew up in the 30s and 40s in Germany before immigrating to the US. He sees many parallels between 1930s Germany and today.)
BB61 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 14:35   #273
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
Why? Do you not agree that not letting drunk Soldiers play with guns is a good thing? If not, then you don't know Joe.
Perhaps - and I'm just spit-balling here - the issue is that you accuse others (me, specifically) of belittling or insulting our military members, and then you turn around and talk about how those same military members shouldn't have access to their own guns because their not trustworthy.

I think that that might have something to do with saving the quote for posterity.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 15:25   #274
Gunnut 45/454
Senior Member
 
Gunnut 45/454's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,039
FiremanMike
Yep laws are laws -apply them equally accross the board or not at all! If I can't own an AR15 why then should a cop? If I can't own a 30 round magazine why should they?
Is there life wurth more then mine? We are all Americans and the 2nd applies equally accross the board! No ones right are more precious then anyuone elses!
__________________
Gunnut45/454-One shot one kill!
Gunnut 45/454 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 15:40   #275
Burns
Senior Member
 
Burns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NOVA
Posts: 1,110
Send a message via AIM to Burns Send a message via Yahoo to Burns
First, I care A LOT about the safety of LEO's. Three of my closest friends and my uncle are LEO's.

I very much support companies that are taking this stand.

Let us phrase this another way...

Should the owners of firearms companies, who believe in our constitutionally protected and God-given rights, be willing to support governments who would deny those rights by providing their enforcers with weaponry to unjustly enforce unconstitutional laws against innocent citizens?

Do we care which governments (foreign or domestic) manufacturers sell weapons to, as long as those weapons are used for protecting an LEO? There are a few governments in history I would be unwilling to support. What about you?

I'm NOT saying that if an officer does something unconstitutional, that I no longer care about their safety - not at all. I'm saying that the safety of any one person or group of people is NOT more important that upholding the constitutional rights of everyone else.
__________________
"Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. -- Walter Williams
Burns is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:18.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,301
362 Members
939 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42