[RussP]

Originally Posted by jay1975

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.

Do you feel more safe or less safe quartered on post? In other words, are there more violent home invasions resulting in personal and property violations on post?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jay1975

"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.

Drinking, doing drugs, it's pervasive in society as a whole. Is it worse in the military? Maybe, and, unfortunately, probably, based on my experience.

Originally Posted by jay1975

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.

But why does a commander need the exception to the 4th Amendment?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by njl

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.).

So, you are okay with the Westobro Baptists protesting soldier funerals then. Afterall, they are just making a politcal statement, right?

[SPDSNYPR]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

So, you are okay with the Westobro Baptists protesting soldier funerals then. Afterall, they are just making a politcal statement, right?

That's a pretty big jump. Like saying that gun owners think children should die. It's a stupid comment you can't back up, and makes you look like an idiot.

[txleapd]

Originally Posted by BB61

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.

I don't think you realize how many cops buy their own duty weapons (and related accessories). I don't think the contention was about cops buying guns for personal use, as much as being able to get tools for the job.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[txleapd]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

So, you are okay with the Westobro Baptists protesting soldier funerals then. Afterall, they are just making a politcal statement, right?

Actually, I am.

While their message sickens me, and I believe they are cowards and scumbags, I respect their 1st Amendment right. Just like I am supposed to respect everyone's 1st Amendment right.

It's not my place to agree with what a person says. It's my place to protect their right to say it.

It's called protecting and upholding the Constitution. We are even expected to do it for scumbags.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by SPDSNYPR

That's a pretty big jump. Like saying that gun owners think children should die. It's a stupid comment you can't back up, and makes you look like an idiot.

They are saying they just want to disarm LEO's because they want to "make a political statement". So, for the folks that put their lives on the line everyday, and saying to them, we don't think you should have the tools you need to survive or do your job. I think it is pretty damn equivalent actually.

They are essetnially saying, "We hope you die."

Which, I don't see the difference between the concept of, "We're glad you're dead."

[clancy]

Originally Posted by RussP

clancy, where did this happen?

What led up to the fight?

Was it right for them to not intervene? Not in my opinion.

Give us more about the incident, please.

I was working a a bartender in Liberty, NY, around '92 or '93. I had just started my shift one Monday night. I looked outside and saw 2 guys beating up on the doorman. I went outside, those 2 guys had 6 other guys in 2 cars who all got out when I walked out. I said to one guy that I wasn't looking for a fight and I just wanted to bring my coworker inide before he got hurt. I was told, "we aren't going to let you". And they didn't. I kept looking over my shoulder, hoping for someone, anyone, to come help us. I heard a siren, looked over my shoulder, and saw a Liberty PD car pull up. About then I got hit, hit the guy back, turned around again and the cop car backed up, turned around and then left us. About a minute later a single NYS Trooper pulled up, pulled out his nightstick and just waded in.

We went to the ER, got stitched up and patched up, and went to the PD. The sergeant at the desk heard what we had to say and then told us to "get the F!@# out and not waste anymore of my time". We tried to meet with the Police Chief, he refused to do so.

I lost all respect for the local PD after that. I also lost all respect for the bar full of guys who watched from the window of the bar as we got our asses kicked. But I really get ticked off when I hear how cops always "run to the sound of the guns". Most do, but not all.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

They are saying they just want to disarm LEO's because they want to "make a political statement". So, for the folks that put their lives on the line everyday, and saying to them, we don't think you should have the tools you need to survive or do your job. I think it is pretty damn equivalent actually.

They are essetnially saying, "We hope you die."

Which, I don't see the difference between the concept of, "We're glad you're dead."

The problem with your concept is that they're NOT saying "we want to disarm LEOs". I've not heard or seen one single company make a statement like that.

What they said is they don't want to do business with government agencies that are restricting the rights of citizens.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this IS still a country where private companies can make their own business decisions, correct? How, pray tell, is this any different than a business in TX putting up a 30.06 "No Firearms" sign? And how is it any different than a consumer deciding "I'm not doing business with that company because they restrict my rights!"?

This is a business decision. Yes, it's crappy that LEOs are getting caught up in it. But NO ONE has said they want LEOs to not have the tools they need to do their job. And they are CERTAINLY not saying "I hope you die" or "We're glad you're dead!" You're turning it into something it very much is NOT and you're trying to make it more of an "Us vs Them" case, which it is not.



However, if I'm wrong and you can find a source for a quote even remotely like that, I'll be glad to rethink my position.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

They are saying they just want to disarm LEO's because they want to "make a political statement". So, for the folks that put their lives on the line everyday, and saying to them, we don't think you should have the tools you need to survive or do your job. I think it is pretty damn equivalent actually.

They are essetnially saying, "We hope you die."

Which, I don't see the difference between the concept of, "We're glad you're dead."

They aren't "Disarming the cops" anymore than the politicians are disarming the citizens

Are you confessing that you are helpless without high capacity mag? Really? That does not speak well for your confidence level.

[Pwhfirefighter]

Originally Posted by jay1975

"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.

I will just ad to what you said as far as the 4th goes, driving your vehicle onto a military post is giving consent to search your vehicle. Every base I have been to has a sign posting that you are "subject to search".

But, as far as your living quarters go, as an AF First Sergeant, I can INSPECT dormatories and barracks for health and safety, at the direction of the commander.. Anything in plain view is subject to be used as evidence if someone leaves something laying out. I CANNOT SEARCH, as in going through closets and drawers or personal items, that requires probable cause, and that involves direct involvement from the commander or JAG. Dogs can be used as they are on the civilian side as from what I understand, a "hit" or indication(whatever the term is when dog alerts) gives probable cause (LEOs correct me if I am wrong).

That is my understanding if I am remembering correctly and understanding the UCMJ Rule 312-316

[SPDSNYPR]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

They are essetnially saying, "We hope you die."

Horse ****. They are saying "we're not going to sell our products to you because of the political climate in your AO." You're making the other leap in your head.

[dhoomonyou]

Originally Posted by jay1975

The police should not have access to weapons that are forbidden from the citizens. The police are civilians too and as such, any restriction for nonuniformed civilians should apply across the board. The politicians see the police as their personal army and often outfit them as such. The only reason I can think of why, is that they want the police to serve as a deterent against the citizens should the people finally decide that enough is enough.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

I agree.
Btw
I predict this thread will end soon.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by jay1975

The police should not have access to weapons that are forbidden from the citizens. The police are civilians too and as such, any restriction for nonuniformed civilians should apply across the board. The politicians see the police as their personal army and often outfit them as such. The only reason I can think of why, is that they want the police to serve as a deterent against the citizens should the people finally decide that enough is enough.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Seems to me the most logical choice for my "personal army" were I a federal politician would be the, um, Army? Therefore, applying your reasoning, it is a dangerous usurpation of power for the .mil to be armed beyond "ordinary" citizens.

For the record, though a LEO, I don't have a major issue with these companies' "stands".

[RussP]

Originally Posted by dhoomonyou

I agree.
Btw
I predict this thread will end soon.

As a moderator I am amazed at the predictions of thread closures. Dhoomony, what is the basis for your prediction?

[Will Beararms]

Agreed: Law-abiding pro-gun Non-LEO's need to work with Law-abiding pro-gun LEO's to protect our Second Amendment. Do I get a motion and a second?

I will say it again, the current administration would love nothing more than to see rank and file officers of the law become at odds with law abiding firearms owners. In fact they are working to this end. Furthermore, the current administration would love to see the firearms industry reduced to a shell of its present standing that they would more closely control nay own.

Let's keep the baby when it comes time to change the bath water. The lack of integrity and leadership coupled with the blatant, biased political activism among the top brass Police and Military personnel is frightening these days. My prayers go out to those in the trenches whether they work out of a precinct or a fire base.

[owl6roll]

Originally Posted by clancy

I was working a a bartender in Liberty, NY, around '92 or '93. I had just started my shift one Monday night. I looked outside and saw 2 guys beating up on the doorman. I went outside, those 2 guys had 6 other guys in 2 cars who all got out when I walked out. I said to one guy that I wasn't looking for a fight and I just wanted to bring my coworker inide before he got hurt. I was told, "we aren't going to let you". And they didn't. I kept looking over my shoulder, hoping for someone, anyone, to come help us. I heard a siren, looked over my shoulder, and saw a Liberty PD car pull up. About then I got hit, hit the guy back, turned around again and the cop car backed up, turned around and then left us. About a minute later a single NYS Trooper pulled up, pulled out his nightstick and just waded in.

We went to the ER, got stitched up and patched up, and went to the PD. The sergeant at the desk heard what we had to say and then told us to "get the F!@# out and not waste anymore of my time". We tried to meet with the Police Chief, he refused to do so.

I lost all respect for the local PD after that. I also lost all respect for the bar full of guys who watched from the window of the bar as we got our asses kicked. But I really get ticked off when I hear how cops always "run to the sound of the guns". Most do, but not all.

Some guys are just scared.

[dosei]

Originally Posted by FiremanMike

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?

NONE of them have "refused to sell to cops". They have simply said that the State's law will be followed...uniformly. Heck, NY "screwed the cops" right of the git-go by writing the new law in such a way as for it to apply to everyone, including LEOs. I personally think that if the Police were to stand unified and tell the politicians that very reasons that make these firearms so exceedingly beneficial to the LEO, also make them beneficial to the responsible law abiding gun owner...the politicians would have a dang hard time passing any gun control measures. Many LEO's have done this...many more need to.

[Burns]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

They are saying they just want to disarm LEO's because they want to "make a political statement". So, for the folks that put their lives on the line everyday, and saying to them, we don't think you should have the tools you need to survive or do your job. I think it is pretty damn equivalent actually.

They are essetnially saying, "We hope you die."

Which, I don't see the difference between the concept of, "We're glad you're dead."

You might feel like that is a logical sequence. It isn't.

[Burns]

Originally Posted by SPDSNYPR

Horse ****. They are saying "we're not going to sell our products to you because of the political climate in your AO." You're making the other leap in your head.

Exactly.

[Mayhem like Me]

Originally Posted by Southswede

Of course I don't!! How would I possibly answer an unasked question?

I asked you failed again..

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by dosei

Heck, NY "screwed the cops" right of the git-go by writing the new law in such a way as for it to apply to everyone, including LEOs.

That's because New York cops (at least NYPD) are a bigger threat to citizens than psychotic shooters.

[Roering]

A popular argument for having the same weapons is that the average citizen faces the same dangers of the criminal element that LEO's do.

Although maybe true in occurrence, it is certainly not in frequency. So yes, you can make a case for having weapons that the average citizen does not.

However, the civilian market is exponentially larger than the market for LEA's and they know where their bread is buttered. The general populace of gun owners do not believe that their should be exceptions to the law when it comes to any of our rights. Companies who would like the support of such people react accordingly.

I can understand your sentiment King, but it is the politicians doing the screwing here. Firearm companies are just reacting as they see fit.

[Southswede]

Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me

I asked you failed again..

Seems reality is different in your world. Perhaps you would care to ask a question. As of yet, you have not.

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by Gryff

That's because New York cops (at least NYPD) is a bigger threat to citizens than psychotic shooters.

Let me just put my waders on and come on in here...

S*** happens, it's even worse when you have an active shooter in an area with a couple of hundred people. But let's not let that get in the way.

You have ricochet, you have background, you have people who panic and run right between the officers and the shooter. What more can you do?