Gun Talk

[nsplayr]

?? Laws don't need SCOTUS precedent. They can be challenged in the appropriate court after they are enacted and that's been done many times recently WRT gun rights. Saying what you said is a little back-aswards way to think about how our process works.

Keep in mind that once again, I don't support all the new NY laws, but if you're gonna critique the process try to get it right.

[Fuzz]

?? Laws don't need SCOTUS precedent. They can be challenged in the appropriate court after they are enacted and that's been done many times recently WRT gun rights. Saying what you said is a little back-aswards way to think about how our process works.

Keep in mind that once again, I don't support all the new NY laws, but if you're gonna critique the process try to get it right.

Shit for once I agree, nsplyr is right, there are no legal precedents that say the government can't regulate the number of bullets you can carry, yet. I hope the courts will take their previous rulings about the right to own firearms and self-defense and slam this back down cuomo's and bloomberg's throat (sts).

[matmacwc]

Keep passing EO's dude, the beauty is they can all be rescinded with a new President.

[ClearedHot]

?? Laws don't need SCOTUS precedent. They can be challenged in the appropriate court after they are enacted and that's been done many times recently WRT gun rights. Saying what you said is a little back-aswards way to think about how our process works.

True, however the appellate process can and often does take years (look at the DC Gun control cases), in the meantime Americans will be denied their 2nd amendment right. The President could just as easily give an executive order tomorrow that says all USAF CSOs are forbidden from possessing a bible with more than seven pages. The CSOs would have a right to pursue appellate relief, but in the meantime if they attempt to exercise a constitutional right and possess a bible with more than seven pages, they could be punished.

The punch line, it is all legal and part of our system, but it is a really crappy way of running a country.

[tac airlifter]

So... keep your 15-round mags, be sure to fire at least 8 rounds at any intruder, and when the cops show up, show them your magazine with only 7 rounds in it. No problem.

"2" on the "what is happening?" sentiment....

No, possession of a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is going to be illegal; I think new Yorkers have a year to sell them out of state. 8-10 round mags still legal (granfathered in) but only allowed to have 7 bullets in them.... And all new manufactured or purchased mags must be 7 rounds or less. No discussion of keeping one in the chamber.

I haven't read the exact wording, but the assumption right now is that cops will be exempt from these laws and the NYPD will still have assault weapons and 17 round mags for their Glocks; which is ridiculous since civilians face the same threat cops face. Even more ridiculous since the people who passed the law are all protected by body guards who aren't affected by the law. Truly a case of hypocritical elite shitting on our founding principals.

[nsplayr]

True, however the appellate process can and often does take years (look at the DC Gun control cases), in the meantime Americans will be denied their 2nd amendment right. The President could just as easily give an executive order tomorrow that says all USAF CSOs are forbidden from possessing a bible with more than seven pages. The CSOs would have a right to pursue appellate relief, but in the meantime if they attempt to exercise a constitutional right and possess a bible with more than seven pages, they could be punished.

The punch line, it is all legal and part of our system, but it is a really crappy way of running a country.

That's all true, it's all part of the system and for better or worse the system takes a long time to make things right sometimes. There have been far graver injustices than a few less bullets upheld in the law for decades until they were changed/overturned by the Court. I think the precedent is pretty clear that there can be limits to the kinds of weapons and ammunition that the public is allowed to possess, so once (most) everyone agrees on that it just matters where you draw the line.

I would personally draw the line much more liberally (in the literal sense) than the NY law does, i.e. less restrictive, but I'm not really sure what the SCOTUS would rule on high-capacity magazine limits based on the case law and based on the fact that it would likely take some time for such a case to reach them. Perhaps we'll find out, however I'm pretty skeptical that there will be a federal high-cap magazine ban due to the makeup of Congress and the fact that I'm fairly confident that such a ban can't be done by EO.

[ClearedHot]

[nsplayr]

I haven't read the exact wording, but the assumption right now is that cops will be exempt from these laws and the NYPD will still have assault weapons and 17 round mags for their Glocks; which is ridiculous since civilians face the same threat cops face.

I don't think many cops would agree with you on that one.

Even more ridiculous since the people who passed the law are all protected by body guards who aren't affected by the law. Truly a case of hypocritical elite shitting on our founding principals.

So all NY state legislators are protected by body guards and those guards are somehow exempt from the law? Man, those guys really do run things differently up there...may need to check your hyperbole on that one. Your overall criticism is right-on in my opinion, but don't let being right rob you of the need to also be correct.

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[Smokin]

nsplayer is right, civilians don't face the same dangers cops do.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html

Just think, if the police had been limited to the same seven bullets, they could have only shot 7 or 8 bystanders. Sounds like NY needs one more gun law...

[ClearedHot]

Well Played NRA.

https://home.nra.org/#/nraorg/VideoModule/8528

[Day Man]

Between USC 18 Sec 930 and the policies of risk-adverse, promotion-focused commanders, it is pretty much impossible to find a fair firearm policy at an Air Force Base these days. All this is doing is preventing law-abiding servicemembers from keeping weapons in their cars in states were it is allowed (such as Texas, where a CHL isn't even require to do so).

Old bump but I was curious...

One of the exceptions from quoted law:

"(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or..."

So if you have a CCW and are a member of the Armed Forces, said law doesn't apply? Someone point out where I'm a retard, please...

[Beaver]

I haven't read the exact wording, but the assumption right now is that cops will be exempt from these laws and the NYPD will still have assault weapons and 17 round mags for their Glocks; which is ridiculous since civilians face the same threat cops face. Even more ridiculous since the people who passed the law are all protected by body guards who aren't affected by the law. Truly a case of hypocritical elite shitting on our founding principals.

Cops are civilians.

[Earle P]

It's an HK; that's been the standard photo shoot for decades.

Hk - No Compromise

[tac airlifter]

I don't think many cops would agree with you on that one.

So all NY state legislators are protected by body guards and those guards are somehow exempt from the law? Man, those guys really do run things differently up there...may need to check your hyperbole on that one. Your overall criticism is right-on in my opinion, but don't let being right rob you of the need to also be correct.

Yes, cops face the exact same threats civilians do (copy all beaver, but I don't have a better wording). Can you name me a threat police officers face that I don't have any chance of facing myself? The people they go after are in public.... You know, where I am. And unless you're clairvoyant you don't know the intentions of anyone around you. So tell me: why does the NYPD need an M4 with 30 rounds but I don't? Is it more likely for a civilian to be assaulted violently or a uniformed police officer? I know they aren't carrying those weapons for my safety since SCOTUS has held there is no duty for them to protect us.

And yes, these laws were passed by people being actively guarded (in a statehouse) by armed men who were and are excluded from the provisions of it.... I don't know or care who has 24/7 coverage so dont make assumptions; fact is: all those officials felt a need to be guarded by armed men that day, and every day they meet. You know otherwise?

Instead of calling hyperbole, why don't you prove me wrong? Or you can admit that your liberal buddies stood on the graves of children to pass freedom hating, crime encouraging legislation as soon as the political winds felt favorable, and you've been duped into supporting them in the past but have now seen the errors of your ways; I'm fine with either of those responses.

[nsplayr]

Yes, cops face the exact same threats civilians do (copy all beaver, but I don't have a better wording).

Hypothetically, yes, a cop could face the same threats as a person in the next house down who is not a cop. But really, you can't imagine why cops' professions are more dangerous, necessitating more firepower than your average citizen? I'm not a cop, but ask a cop what he thinks about your hypothesis that he faces the same threats you do on a day-to-day basis.

Instead of calling hyperbole, why don't you prove me wrong? Or you can admit that your liberal buddies stood on the graves of children to pass freedom hating, crime encouraging legislation as soon as the political winds felt favorable, and you've been duped into supporting them in the past but have now seen the errors of your ways; I'm fine with either of those responses.

Well since you've left me with two outstanding choices! Lol...you hyperbole was in saying all NY lawmakers were guarded by bodyguards and that those bodyguards are exempt from the law. When in fact they are, while on very specific pieces of state property, guarded by police officers who fully comply with the laws as written, who OBTW would protect you if you happened to be on that same very specific piece of state property.

That's what I mean by hyperbole. You can say the NY law is overreach and that it will likely be ineffective in stopping the vast majority of gun crimes and I'll 100% agree because even as a liberal, that's what I believe as well. So there's no need to say "Well those guys are above the law! Rabble rabble rabble!!" If the NY legislation does indeed say cops are exempt from the AWB and magazine limits (I'm not that intimately familiar with it sts...), cops aren't above the law, they're perfectly within the law as written. There's a distinct difference between those two concepts.

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

Hypothetically, yes, a cop could face the same threats as a person in the next house down who is not a cop. But really, you can't imagine why cops' professions are more dangerous, necessitating more firepower than your average citizen? I'm not a cop, but ask a cop what he thinks about your hypothesis that he faces the same threats you do on a day-to-day basis.

Well since you've left me with two outstanding choices! Lol...you hyperbole was in saying all NY lawmakers were guarded by bodyguards and that those bodyguards are exempt from the law. When in fact they are, while on very specific pieces of state property, guarded by police officers who fully comply with the laws as written, who OBTW would protect you if you happened to be on that same very specific piece of state property.

That's what I mean by hyperbole. You can say the NY law is overreach and that it will likely be ineffective in stopping the vast majority of gun crimes and I'll 100% agree because even as a liberal, that's what I believe as well. So there's no need to say "Well those guys are above the law! Rabble rabble rabble!!" If the NY legislation does indeed say cops are exempt from the AWB and magazine limits (I'm not that intimately familiar with it sts...), cops aren't above the law, they're perfectly within the law as written. There's a distinct difference between those two concepts.

Those were two excellent sounding wordy non-answers to my questions. And you are wrong if you think cops would protect me, they have absolutely no duty to do so, and the courts have been very clear that the public has no reasonable expectation of protection.

[Fuzz]

The general public is the first to be exposed to crime, the cops show up after. Usually they put themselves in danger pursuing criminals that have already presented a danger to the general public.

The people who are pushing this Bloomberg, Cuomo, and POTUS guarded 24/7 by armed security.

[M2]

Hypothetically, yes, a cop could face the same threats as a person in the next house down who is not a cop. But really, you can't imagine why cops' professions are more dangerous, necessitating more firepower than your average citizen? I'm not a cop, but ask a cop what he thinks about your hypothesis that he faces the same threats you do on a day-to-day basis.

While not a cop, I do volunteer with the local police department and have ridden along with several departments in the area; and I will tell you that the distinction isn't whether the public faces the same threat as the police (they do), it's a matter of how often. I may not encounter criminals on a regular basis as police do, but the opportunity to do so is the same for everyone and that in and of itself is sufficient justification as to why I should be allowed to protect myself.

There should be no limitations whatsoever on the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Not only are restrictions such as the ones passed in New York illegal according to the Second Amendment (the SCOTUS will most likely overturn them eventually, as was done in the District of Columbia), other laws that greatly restrict the ownership and use of full-automatic weapons should be overturned as well. Inanimate objects should not be held accountable for the illegal action of a few, hold the individual responsible as it should be!

Probably surprisingly to you, nsplayr; but most law enforcement officers not only support armed law-abiding citizens, they encourage it! I know what the average 911 response time is in this city, and even cops understand the old adage "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!" Pretty much all officers I know, from municipal level up to Federal, understand the inherent right of self-defense and defense of others and property.

[nsplayr]

Those were two excellent sounding wordy non-answers to my questions.

Here's the cliff notes version:

1. You asked if cops faced the same threats as regular folks. I answer the threats can be the same, the frequency and the expected reaction to those threats are not the same.

2. You asked me to prove you wrong. I said my piece, there's no real "bam, you're wrong!" to be had in this kind of debate. You said that the "bodyguards" protecting NY lawmakers were essentially above the law and I find that to be a bit of hyperbole.

While not a cop, I do volunteer with the local police department and have ridden along with several departments in the area; and I will tell you that the distinction isn't whether the public faces the same threat as the police (they do), it's a matter of how often. I may not encounter criminals on a regular basis as police do, but the opportunity to do so is the same for everyone and that in and of itself is sufficient justification as to why I should be allowed to protect myself.

Agreed, and I'd argue in states that have magazine or assault weapon limits, it's perfectly reasonable to exempt the state's law enforcement officers because of the increased frequency of threats they might face. That's not the path I would pursue in trying to address gun violence, but it's not hard to see the justification for having a different set of rules for LEOs.

Not only are restrictions such as the ones passed in New York illegal according to the Second Amendment (the SCOTUS will most likely overturn them eventually, as was done in the District of Columbia), other laws that greatly restrict the ownership and use of full-automatic weapons should be overturned as well.

I don't share your view that the SCOTUS will/would overturn the machine gun ban and since NY and other states have had magazine limits for some time, I'm not sure they would find those to be unconstitutional either. I can see a distinction between banning a certain type of very common firearm with many legitimate hunting, sporting, and personal protection uses (found to be unconstitutional 5-4 in Heller) and putting reasonable limits on the right to bear arms, which the majority opinion in Heller specifically upheld. The view that any and all restrictions on firearm ownership are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment is not one held even by the most conservative justices on the Court.

Probably surprisingly to you, nsplayr; but most law enforcement officers not only support armed law-abiding citizens, they encourage it! I know what the average 911 response time is in this city, and even cops understand the old adage "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!" Pretty much all officers I know, from municipal level up to Federal, understand the inherent right of self-defense and defense of others and property.

Not surprised at all and I support the right of private citizens to own and use firearms. My specific question to be asked to cops was "Do you face the same threats as ordinary citizens?" I'm betting they would answer that they face more frequent and/or more serious threats in the line of duty and that their expected reaction to those threats is different that what is expected of your average Joe, thus justifying their exemption from AWBs and magazine limits on their duty weapons.

Edited January 16, 2013 by nsplayr

[SocialD]

Oregon, Texas officials warn White House against enforcing new gun regulations

Read more: https://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2I9eMDiT5

State officials in Oregon and Texas are vowing to fight back against any attempt by the federal government to impose new gun control laws.

The warnings come as President Obama prepares to unveil a "comprehensive" plan to address gun violence, based on the recommendations from the Vice President Biden-led task force. The plan is expected to include a call for legislation to ban assault weapons as well as a variety of executive actions.

But in Oregon, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote a letter to Biden Monday saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.

Mueller said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.

"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."

Meanwhile, 1200 WOAI reports that in Texas, Republican state Rep. Steve Toth plans to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to enforce in the state any federal laws restricting semi-automatic firearms or the size of gun magazines.

Toth told 1200 WOAI that the bill would also call for felony charges to be brought against federal officials who attempt to enforce any such rules.

"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI.

The warnings could be the first wave of state officials pushing back against Congress and the White House as they take up new gun control measures in the wake of the Connecticut mass shooting. Obama and others say new rules to at least limit the size of high-capacity magazines are overdue and could save lives.

Mueller, though, told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.

"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."

Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws.

Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.

Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.

"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."

The Associated Press contributed to his report.

Read more: https://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2I9eGM9xY

Edited January 16, 2013 by SocialD

[tac airlifter]

My specific question to be asked to cops was "Do you face the same threats as ordinary citizens?" I'm betting they would answer that they face more frequent and/or more serious threats in the line of duty and that their expected reaction to those threats is different that what is expected of your average Joe, thus justifying their exemption from AWBs and magazine limits on their duty weapons.

So what more serious threat do police face than me, average joe citizen? Frequency is irrelevant WRT a need for standard capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles; if they face 10 incidents of home invasion and I face one (as an example) we both need the same tool for the same task. And again I reiterate: thier weapons are for their personal defense, not the defense of others. An individual police officer can choose to use his weapon to defend others, and many brave ones do; but they have no duty to do so. Since they face the same threat (more often, again, is irrelevant), why should they be allowed better tools to defend themselves?

And all this is tangential to the purpose of the second amendment, which is an armed populace as a last defense against tyranny. I suspect George Washington would barf on his knickers if he knew we're now debating the degree to which a citizen is allowed to defend themselves. Having lived in DC under the gun ban when crime was peaking in the 90's I can tell you first hand that gun bans have two certain effects: emboldening criminals (resulting in an overall increase in violent crime) and wasting time/resources from police who now arrest otherwise peacable citizens suspected of owning a weapon for self-defense. Oh, I guess there is always that third common theme WRT gun bans: somehow elected officials still need to be protected by armed cops.... which any way you slice it smacks of hypocisy. I wonder, whats more historically/statistically likely: the Gov of a state (or mayor of a major city) having his house broken into or being mugged on the street, or an average citizen having their home broken into & being mugged on the street?

I guess we'll agree to disagree here.

[M2]

Well Played NRA.

https://home.nra.org/...ideoModule/8528

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjgv1MH7s

It's as hypocritical as Obama claiming that guns make us less safe, yet he is surrounded by armed Secret Service agents 24/7.

[FreudianSlip]

Hypothetically, yes, a cop could face the same threats as a person in the next house down who is not a cop. But really, you can't imagine why cops' professions are more dangerous, necessitating more firepower than your average citizen? I'm not a cop, but ask a cop what he thinks about your hypothesis that he faces the same threats you do on a day-to-day basis.

I haven't been here in a long time. Just jumped in to see what the scuttlebutt was and saw this...so I'll play.

Background: former Herk Driver who became a sheriff's deputy, who now works at USAFA (not LEO related).

I could give a rat's ass about frequency that LEO face danger vs avg joe public....blablabla. I live in a nice part of town and had armed break in 2 blocks from my house. I don't care about what you see in the movies, when bullets start flying, there are A LOT of misses and very FEW hits. I DON'T fight fair. I want as many rounds in my home defense AR as it can hold and I can wield. I want as many rounds in my CCW piece as it can hold and I can comfortably wear. Three years off the force and walking out of the local super market I still hear from behind me, "Hey Dep, how's it going, remember me?" with some junkie that looks worse off then when I arrested him with his hands in his jacket pocket. My father-in-law, 20 year + retired deputy: same thing. Are there going to be provisions for people like him and me to have more than 7 or 10 rounds due to our past run-ins with the dredges of society? If so, great, now I'm better than the lady down the street who has a stalker, moved 4 times, and the legal system has still failed her. I don't give a crap how good or bad of a shot you are. There are threats to everybody, all the time, welcome to the real world, and being limited with the type of protection I can or cannot have is BS.

[nsplayr]

Frequency is irrelevant WRT a need for standard capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles; if they face 10 incidents of home invasion and I face one (as an example) we both need the same tool for the same task.

I disagree. Cops face more frequent threats that may require firearms to deal with and on top of that, are required by their job to undertake dangerous tasks WRT those threats that are not required of average citizens. Therefore, I have no problem with exempting LEOs from firearms restrictions in a state that chooses to ban "assault weapons" or high-cap magazines.

And all this is tangential to the purpose of the second amendment, which is an armed populace as a last defense against tyranny.

This is not a universally held way to view the Second Amendment. It's a valid POV, just realize not everyone agrees, including some of those who make policy and interpret the Constitution for a living.

Having lived in DC under the gun ban when crime was peaking in the 90's I can tell you first hand that gun bans have two certain effects: emboldening criminals (resulting in an overall increase in violent crime) and wasting time/resources from police who now arrest otherwise peacable citizens suspected of owning a weapon for self-defense.

Good thing that the DC handgun ban was found unconstitutional then.

I wonder, whats more historically/statistically likely: the Gov of a state (or mayor of a major city) having his house broken into or being mugged on the street, or an average citizen having their home broken into & being mugged on the street?

I'd venture that elected officials are not protected specifically to defend against muggings or home invasions. There are some different threats they face not typically faced by ordinary citizens. Food for thought.

Background: former Herk Driver who became a sheriff's deputy, who now works at USAFA (not LEO related).

So would you agree that as an actively serving LEO you would face more frequent threats in the line of duty than you do as an ordinary citizen?

My question isn't really related to my position on the debate...I'm not one supporting AWBs or magazine limits (other than maybe 30+ for pistols, the stuipd 100-round drums for ARs, etc.) Limiting the number of rounds in a firearm that was legitimately designed to hold more (i.e. 17 for a 9mm pistol, 30 for a standard AR mag), etc. doesn't make sense to me either. The question though was trying to "prove" the point that if you ARE gonna design a law that limits types of weapons and magazine capacities, it still does make sense to exempt your LEOs from those provisions due to their profession. Doing so doesn't make those people "above the law," there is a legitimate purpose to arm LEOs (and soldiers for that matter) more robustly than you would allow a private citizen to arm himself.

[FreudianSlip]

So would you agree that as an actively serving LEO you would face more frequent threats in the line of duty than you do as an ordinary citizen?

Sure, if you insist. Again, don't care, or as I said, don't give a rat's ass. I don't have a vest, tazer, brick with a BOB button, back up that will 1000 mph if I'm in trouble. My blood probably boiled a bit when I thought I saw the LEO can have more rounds than me and hit the reply button 1/2 to fast. (sorry, working and reading at the same time)

I'm glad you don't support an AWB or mag restrictions.

I will say I could care less about drums or surefire 60 round mags...they suck and jam. I rather have a lunny try to use one of those so I can have the time to engage.

Edited January 16, 2013 by FreudianSlip