You took the job their right? YOU decided on where to work, big difference. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

I do not agree. A police officer south of here was FIRED because he put a sign in his front yard advocating the challenger for a Sheriff's election vs. supporting the current Sheriff.

Two wrongs don't make a right and using the police exemption to complain that the public cannot use the same size comparion is faulty logic. Like I mentioned earlier, why doesn't this law apply to the New York National Guard? Why not include EVERYONE. When the Secret Service comes to town they need to change out their weapons, along with the FBI etc.... Don't forget the Coast Guard stationed in NY right? The answer is: They carry guns for a PROFESSION and it is a tool of their trade. Forcing the police to use diminished capcity magazines only puts them in danger from criminals who are using illegal firepower. Police do NOT get paid to fight fair, especially to PROVE A POINT. The likelihood of police confronting one of these criminals with the illegal guns is much, much, much greater than an individual on their private property. The police have an exemption to speed while in the performance of their duties, but no one is up in arms about that?

 

I do not agree with their law by any means, but I also don't agree with complaining about the police being exempt (an exemption which is logical) to prove a point. Seven rounds is ridiculous.

Two wrongs don't make a right and using the police exemption to complain that the public cannot use the same size comparion is faulty logic. Like I mentioned earlier, why doesn't this law apply to the New York National Guard? Why not include EVERYONE. When the Secret Service comes to town they need to change out their weapons, along with the FBI etc.... Don't forget the Coast Guard stationed in NY right? The answer is: They carry guns for a PROFESSION and it is a tool of their trade. Forcing the police to use diminished capcity magazines only puts them in danger from criminals who are using illegal firepower. Police do NOT get paid to fight fair, especially to PROVE A POINT. The likelihood of police confronting one of these criminals with the illegal guns is much, much, much greater than an individual on their private property. The police have an exemption to speed while in the performance of their duties, but no one is up in arms about that?

 

I do not agree with their law by any means, but I also don't agree with complaining about the police being exempt (an exemption which is logical) to prove a point. Seven rounds is ridiculous.

 

I actually agree with you mostly, except for the highlighted part. What does getting paid have anything to do with it? Hell, I would love to be both PAID and be EXEMPT from having to follow laws. That is awesome. But most people couldn't PAY enough to even get a fair law nevertheless be exempt from them!

 

I only support LEO's being exempt because it is a stupid law, not because it is fair. Every law abiding citizen should be exempt.

I do not agree. A police officer south of here was FIRED because he put a sign in his front yard advocating the challenger for a Sheriff's election vs. supporting the current Sheriff.

I'd like to see how they FIRED him for that.. Ask yourself, is your job more important then doing the right thing? Are these privileges used to keep LEO's from doing the right thing(generalization)? I would be pretty happy to NOT have to work for someone who is such an A$$ Hat. But that's just me.

My point was that police carry guns specifically to confront criminals on a regular basis whereas the average citizen would only confront them in their home, if ever.

 

I carried a $199 Remington 870; 4 shot; shotgun for the longest time and was clearly out gunned by a criminal carrying an AK/AR variant. Times changed around the time of the Hollywood shooting. Somebody important realized how out gunned the police were. We NEED to have better equipment than the average person b/c we are much more likely to be engaged in a gun fight and are given the ultimate authority to take someone’s life, thus we do not get paid to fight fair.

 

That type of authority is not entrusted to the average citizen, except in their home. I’m not going to get into the training year in and out in order to be given this authority, except to say that the actual hands on the gun is probably the easiest part.

My point was that police carry guns specifically to confront criminals on a regular basis whereas the average citizen would only confront them in their home, if ever.

 

I carried a $199 Remington 870; 4 shot; shotgun for the longest time and was clearly out gunned by a criminal carrying an AK/AR variant. Times changed around the time of the Hollywood shooting. Somebody important realized how out gunned the police were. We NEED to have better equipment than the average person b/c we are much more likely to be engaged in a gun fight and are given the ultimate authority to take someone’s life, thus we do not get paid to fight fair.

 

That type of authority is not entrusted to the average citizen, except in their home. I’m not going to get into the training year in and out in order to be given this authority, except to say that the actual hands on the gun is probably the easiest part.

just because they may need more rounds on a day to day basis, doesnt mean i dont need more rounds the one if any time in my life i need them just like they do. There is no justification here. If a cop needs more then 7 rounds to stop a threat, then any person would need more then 7 rounds to stop a threat.... the frequency of threats has ZERO to do with it.

Bones, since you used a plural I am assuming you are talking about law enforcement hypocisy. I won't entertain that topic.

 

QUOTE: .....and be EXEMPT from having to follow laws

just because they may need more rounds on a day to day basis, doesnt mean i dont need more rounds the one if any time in my life i need them just like they do.

 

I am only debating the sense for the exemption. I don't agree with the 7 round limitation.

 

Not everyone needs a Stihl when a Craftsman chainsaw will get the job done, the police NEED a Stihl.

actually, since cops are trained, dont they need less rounds then the average citizen? sorry not trying to be a dick or attack LEO's in any manner, but there is no consistency with these arguments at all.

 

We all should have access to what ever an LEO has access to, we live in the same place as them and are threatened by the same people, again we can argue the frequency, but the fact is nothing a cop encounters couldn't happen to average joe. The idea here is equal opportunity of self defense.

I am only debating the sense for the exemption. I don't agree with the 7 round limitation.

 

Not everyone needs a Stihl when a Craftsman chainsaw will get the job done, the police NEED a Stihl.

 

You're missing the point and using bad logic. You're comparing cutting down a tree to saving a life. It doesn't matter when it comes to the percentage of "if" it happens. I want as many rounds as possible when protecting myself.

 

+1 to jackdawack for for the point!

Bones, since you used a plural I am assuming you are talking about law enforcement hypocisy. I won't entertain that topic.

 

QUOTE: .....and be EXEMPT from having to follow laws

 

Not sure what your reason for posting is if you won't entertain the topic.

 

But this specific bill changed multiple laws, not just the magazine capacity...

 

 

 

actually, since cops are trained, dont they need less rounds then the average citizen? sorry not trying to be a dick or attack LEO's in any manner, but there is no consistency with these arguments at all.

 

We all should have access to what ever an LEO has access to, we live in the same place as them and are threatened by the same people, again we can argue the frequency, but the fact is nothing a cop encounters couldn't happen to average joe. The idea here is equal opportunity of self defense.

 

No consistency at all.

 

I perceive the statement as saying police are exempt having to follow laws, which isn't actually a true statement. Many people believe it is and sometimes I get a little touchy when someone says cops "get away" with law breaking. Sorry if I misinterpreted it.

Let's step away from that. It's not relevant, and i looked at it from a more respectable stand point, I'd rather people take a step back then incite a flame war.

 

people are just really fed up with this idea the LEO's have more rights to self protection(as evident here). A threat is a threat is a threat, if you can justify saying an LEO needs weapon X to stop a threat, then we need weapon X to deal with that same threat. The criminals don't discriminate, why should we?

 

LEO's could really be on our side here, and they are! all over the country. So we can't be so black and white about it.

people are just really fed up with this idea the LEO's have more rights to self protection(as evident here). A threat is a threat is a threat, if you can justify saying an LEO needs weapon X to stop a threat, then we need weapon X to deal with that same threat. The criminals don't discriminate, why should we?

 

Exactly!

 

Saying police are more likely to encounter a threat means it is okay for them but not for us is saying that it is okay for a citizen to be a killed, or at least, more okay. That is of course, ridiculous. That also isn't what I think anybody is saying here, but rather what some of those great legislators are saying. (See above video for proof of that! "Change the clip." What a friggin douche.)

 

 

I am only debating the sense for the exemption. I don't agree with the 7 round limitation.

 

Not everyone needs a Stihl when a Craftsman chainsaw will get the job done, the police NEED a Stihl.

I use a husky( same thing as a sthl). A professional quality tool to get the job done.

I don't cut trees everyday, but when I do, I want the right tool for the job.

 

Jus like the professionals.........

 

A= b, and b = c

Therefore, a must = c

Logic

And taking them away from LEO's that are retired helps the overall fight how??

 

For one, having equality would cause them to be outraged and speak up. Maybe they'd show some backlash against other cops, chiefs, their unions, etc. which all typically back anti gun bills. Why not, it's not like it's going to effect them.

Also, why are retired cops even considered for an exemption or a carry permit in places like NJ/NY anyway?

 

Let's face it, most cops spend their entire careers giving out traffic tickets, maybe the occasional domestic call or bar fight. Hardly the type of individuals that are going to track you down and murder you twenty years later. "You got me 20 hours community service! I'm gonna find where you live and make you pay!" Seriously how is that an excuse?

 

If they worked vice squad, homocide, etc. then let them apply on a per-case basis and show why they have a need to carry a gun, and demonstrate that there is an imminent threat to their life. Just like the rest of us plebes have to do if we want a CCW.

 

Then, if they ever change the state's CCW laws one day, they can have one like the rest of us.

Doesnt HR218 already cover LEO's from all of this?

You might find this hard to believe, but I am pretty sure there are people with grudges against me, too. What am I supposed to do?

the same as me...follow state law and run and cower. There are PLENTY of people with grudges in this world my friend..

I do not agree. A police officer south of here was FIRED because he put a sign in his front yard advocating the challenger for a Sheriff's election vs. supporting the current Sheriff.

I will call BS on that...their union would NEVER let that happen;

Don't underestimate the power of a sitting Sheriff in the south. Quartzsite, AZ had some pretty interesting stuff go on with their [former] police chief.

 

Just saying.

 

For one, having equality would cause them to be outraged and speak up. Maybe they'd show some backlash against other cops, chiefs, their unions, etc. which all typically back anti gun bills. Why not, it's not like it's going to effect them.

 

I'll hit 2 in one on this..

 

First, Nick, I get what your saying, but trying to look at both sides, I guess my problem is in my job I have to look at what good for the bigger operation rather than the small local operation in my ATC position so I may be clouded. The only comment to you post that do not disagree with, but many of the folks here that people are lumping into a group, well I just wonder what a lot of people would feel and how they would respond being there is a underling us vs. them thing going on. Problem is, 99% of the, are on our side and doing things. Just sayin

 

 

Fanta, I thing overall, especially here on the forum with the LEO's here, while not in the same boat, do speak up and not only support our position, but are doing something. Problem is, when LEO's get to higher and higher ranking position, it becomes more political and even if their inner feeling don't change on their 2A position, it may be clouded for just that, political BS for lack of a better term.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I really don't care that LEO speak up on the New Jersey Gun Forums. That doesn't help anyone. That's preaching to the choir. That's circle jerking. That's hiding behind a semi-anonymous avatar on a private forum.

 

When uniformed LEOs speak up in the public, at town hall meetings, in courts, press conferences, on the news or newspaper, then we can say they are saying something.

 

Until then.....

I will call BS on that...their union would NEVER let that happen;

 

Not BS. It occurred down south. It was discussed at length on a LE forum. I was amazed it could happen as were other Officers. You could see a pattern though. Northern Officers couldn't believe it was true, and Southern Officers seemed to act as if it happens often. They replied; "he shouldn't want to work there anyway". Amazing.....

This is no different than the push for retired LEO carry laws in NJ back in the day. I got into it with members of my family because I didn't support the law since once they were retired they were no longer under any obligation to respond and were technically civillians like the rest of us, I felt they threw us under the bus by not supporting CCW for all law abiding citizens. As long as they got to carry screw us. There should no civilian more equal than the rest of us.

Also, why are retired cops even considered for an exemption or a carry permit in places like NJ/NY anyway?

 

Let's face it, most cops spend their entire careers giving out traffic tickets, maybe the occasional domestic call or bar fight. Hardly the type of individuals that are going to track you down and murder you twenty years later. "You got me 20 hours community service! I'm gonna find where you live and make you pay!" Seriously how is that an excuse?

 

If they worked vice squad, homocide, etc. then let them apply on a per-case basis and show why they have a need to carry a gun, and demonstrate that there is an imminent threat to their life. Just like the rest of us plebes have to do if we want a CCW.

 

Then, if they ever change the state's CCW laws one day, they can have one like the rest of us.

 

I disagree.... I do not work in Camden/Newark/Jersey City.....etc....but there are plenty of very bad people all over. I am always amazed at the lack of knowledge people have of what actually happens in their own neighborhoods. Frustration with the system abounds. A gentleman I arrested attempted to stab me with a 14" scissor blade, fought with me for my gun, bit my chest so hard through my BP vest that he burst the blood vessels in my chest then finished by calling out he would get 5 years, do only 3 years then when he gets out and I forgot about him he would walk up to me and put a bullet in my head, cut off my dick and stick it in my wife's mouth before he put a bullet in her head. During grand jury one of the people on the jury said and I quote: "it is his freedom of speak to say that". I have no faith. As a police officer I get it from bad guys and goods guys who just don't like the police for whatever reason. You cannot win.....

 

In the last 8 months or so, I've done plenty of use of force reports including chasing down a criminal with a 9mm and tackling him as he was pulling it out of his waistband. "We" have regularly needed high quality/capcity weapons. I'm not saying I don't want others to have it if the "want" one, but we "need" them. There is a big difference between wanting one and having to have one. Like it or not that makes perfect sense.

I will just add one. Locked up a guy after a fight in Newark Penn Station. Landed me out of work for 13 months. When he was released on bail( yes bail for a 3 time felon with a loaded weapon and agg assault) I found out he was staying with family close to where I live. I had no idea but one of our detectives knew I lived close by and informed me. This guy was facing federal charges and I may have run into him with my family at the supermarket. Its things like that. That is what is different. Don't flame me because you know I advocate that everybody should be able to protect themselves at any time

just because they may need more rounds on a day to day basis, doesnt mean i dont need more rounds the one if any time in my life i need them just like they do. There is no justification here. If a cop needs more then 7 rounds to stop a threat, then any person would need more then 7 rounds to stop a threat.... the frequency of threats has ZERO to do with it.

 

How can you say frequency doesn't matter? Citizens are not required to respond to confront dangerous people of all types, police are. Citizens are required to retreat, police are required to move forward to the threat. You cannot see the difference? Frequency and mission are WAY far apart!

Reminder that I do not support NY' weapon ban. I have an understanding why they would make an exemption for police. BTW..my off duty Kahr 9mm only has 7 rounds so it won't matter for me in NY. Multiple magazines are my best friend!

ktd1597,

 

You're not going to win this one buddy, not here. LEOs are employees of the people. They should have no more rights than the people. Any LEO who thinks they SHOULD have more rights than the people shouldn't be a LEO imo.