LEO should be subject to the same restrictions as civilians.

[dsdmmat]

Not really . They don’t care in this case.
Who stopped national reciprocity? We had enough votes in one session in congress to overcome the anti -gun groups . It was a small minority of pro gun that killed it because they didn’t want the federal government involved in anyway . But we all suffer now.
Before SAFE and CCIA, were you fighting to over turn NYC gun laws ? They still can only have 5 round magazines for long guns . To a NYC gun owner , SAFE and CCIA is that shared pain you talk about . That’s what this take away from LE is like .

National reciprocity would never have got the 60 votes in the senate to bypass the filibuster and you know it. It was a publicity stunt in the house.

I did not get to NY until late 2001, I always knew it was a shit hole state when it came to guns and a place I never wanted to be in. The Army had different plans for me though. When I got there it was already pretty bad so I jumped into the fight to try it from going full dystopian after NY was already lost.

However, I realize NY ( like CA, NJ, WA, OR and a few others) is a lost cause and the only thing I can do now is try to prevent the spread of the disease to the healthy parts of the country and support the patriotic gun owners behind enemy lines.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

National reciprocity would never have got the 60 votes in the senate to bypass the filibuster and you know it. It was a publicity stunt in the house.

I did not get to NY until late 2001, I always knew it was a shit hole state when it came to guns and a place I never wanted to be in. The Army had different plans for me though. When I got there it was already pretty bad so I jumped into the fight to try it from going full dystopian after NY was already lost.

However, I realize NY ( like CA, NJ, WA, OR and a few others) is a lost cause and the only thing I can do now is try to prevent the spread of the disease to the healthy parts of the country and support the patriotic gun owners behind enemy lines.

National Reciprocity didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. We had the House, the Senate, and Trump was President. NR was killed by that asshole cocksucking Paul Ryan who refused to let it come to a vote.

 

[dsdmmat]

National Reciprocity didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. We had the House, the Senate, and Trump was President. NR was killed by that asshole cocksucking Paul Ryan who refused to let it come to a vote.

The republicans did not have a super majority in the senate. Senators from NY and CA were promising a filibuster and the republicans did not have the 60 votes to end the filibuster. Not to mention Romney would have voted with the Ds. It would not have made it to the floor for a vote in the senate.

I strongly believe Mitch asked Ryan to scuttle it in the house so the Senate would not have to hold a vote and expose all the gun control supporting RINOs and risk losing the Senate as well as the house.

 

[Celt]

I like @Airborneguy and the rest of our LEOs here contrary to my post. It was just more of my curiosity on people's stances.

I get it, but your mindset on the topic is flawed from my perspective.

 

[Celt]

National Reciprocity didn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. We had the House, the Senate, and Trump was President. NR was killed by that asshole cocksucking Paul Ryan who refused to let it come to a vote.

Exactly. That worthless fucking rino puppet.

 

[FP1201]

i wonder how much the NRA spent on

National Firearms Act of 1934

GCA 1968


The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.

55 Years ago for the GCA and 89 years ago for the NFA: The Leadership and Membership has changed how many times since then?

Go back and read the Congressional Record of the Hearings, look at the List of "experts" brought in before the Committee to testify: It isn't who you think, the other thing you've got to remember is the NRA is not a Legislating body they can Lobby, but in the end it' the Party line vote that decides what passes both houses and the presidency.

Wayne has raised more money for the Association than anyone, ever. Would you fault a CEO being paid a Million a year if he was making the Company ten million?

Don't like the NRA? Fine, don't join. same for NYSRPA, GOA, or any of the others, and if you don't belong, then what the fuck is it to you? Really; if you don't belong, of you don't participate, if you don't get involved, then what right have you to bitch about what they do?

 

[SomeSoldier]

Meh.

“I, officer name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

If you enforce the tyrannical laws, you broke this.

Either we are all the same or not, period. Your profession should not grant anyone special rights.

 

[Truebeliever]

Meh.

“I, officer name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

If you enforce the tyrannical laws, you broke this.

Either we are all the same or not, period. Your profession should not grant anyone special rights.

And who interprets it as per the constitution. SCOTUS . They have to make a ruling and enforce it . Even SCOTUS majority decision didn’t go far enough what some here think the 2nd amendment says . Kavanaugh’s concurrent opinion flat out says permit requirements are allowed. Other justices say something else. Some things are clear cut . Other things are in dispute.
But here is the military oath which is similar to the oath officers take:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed .

Note the obey the orders part . It’s where the conflict is the rub. If 4 out 9 Justices can’t get it right, you can’t expect every cop to either

 

[Acer-m14]

Kavanaugh can not read or understand 1791 English ..

and you should never follow unjust orders .. or your just like the SS .. load up the box cars .. yes sir ..

 

[SomeSoldier]

And who interprets it as per the constitution. SCOTUS . They have to make a ruling and enforce it . Even SCOTUS majority decision didn’t go far enough what some here think the 2nd amendment says . Kavanaugh’s concurrent opinion flat out says permit requirements are allowed. Other justices say something else. Some things are clear cut . Other things are in dispute.
But here is the military oath which is similar to the oath officers take:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed .

Note the obey the orders part . It’s where the conflict is the rub. If 4 out 9 Justices can’t get it right, you can’t expect every cop to either

Everyone points to interpretation as a defense. The Constitution is a confirmation of rights, not permission.

Either we follow it or we don't. I am tired of the bullshit.

 

[Truebeliever]

Everyone points to interpretation as a defense. The Constitution is a confirmation of rights, not permission.

Either we follow it or we don't. I am tired of the bullshit.

It’s less of defense than explaining the limitations. Can the president order a drone strike on an individual American citizen without a trial or a clear immediate danger to the country or anyone at that time ? A possible violation of the 6th admendment. Do you think the soldiers should have refused the order of the drone strikes where they did that ? Is that a grey area? Sure is depending on who the target is right?

 

[SomeSoldier]

It’s less of defense than explaining the limitations. Can the president order a drone strike on an individual American citizen without a trial or a clear immediate danger to the country or anyone at that time ? A possible violation of the 6th admendment. Do you think the soldiers should have refused the order of the drone strikes where they did that ? Is that a grey area? Sure is depending on who the target is right?

It's not a grey area. It's illegal and the soldier should refuse.

 

[Acer-m14]

It’s less of defense than explaining the limitations. Can the president order a drone strike on an individual American citizen without a trial or a clear immediate danger to the country or anyone at that time ? A possible violation of the 6th admendment. Do you think the soldiers should have refused the order of the drone strikes where they did that ? Is that a grey area? Sure is depending on who the target is right?

didn't obama do that ..

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, Arabic: عبدالرحمن العولقي; August 26, 1995 – October 14, 2011) was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed due to a drone airstrike. The strike occurred under a policy approved by U.S. President Barack Obama, carried out on October 14, 2011.

 

[Darth]

I think most LE jumped through more hoops to get what has been granted by these lawmakers . Do you I agree with their restrictions? Hell no but don’t advocate take away from me because they screwed you. They will just screw us both.
Why do they give LE and retired LE more leeway on these things ? Some of it is an idea that’s it’s okay for police and retired police to have a gun in their minds as opposed to regular people . It’s their misconception. It’s also why security guards can carry but they don’t get it that a business owner or just a regular person is their own security gusrd
The other reason is no one would become a police officer/peace officer if they knew they would be disarmed when they retire
Another reason is that police and peace officer gun handling was much more regulated than someone with permit before CCIA. The type, caliber of the gun and how it’s carried is covered by department regulations. Some departments are leant , others are strict . Some departments only allow the officer to carry one specific gun, on or off duty . Others could carry whatever they wanted. Some defined what holster and where on the body they could carry .
The law gave active police officers more rights for practical reasons . Imagine if a police officer legally couldn’t hand their gun to their partner -like CCW technically can’t just let another CCW hold someone’s gun except at a range or specific location. The job couldn’t get done . Purchase of firearms — very difficult to go thru the normal process for police departments like the NYPD who hire 3000 people at a pop and they have to buy their guns ( backup guns are still privately bought ). There are practical reasons to these exemptions in the criminal law and they leave it up to their departments.
Unlike most here , I have an opportunity to jump thru more of the required hoops . I have to requalify every year . I had to get more initial formal training than most here as in training hours in addition to that yearly requalification . This isn’t saying I’m better . It’s saying I have more hoops to jump thru.
And yes, federal law lets me go more places because the lack of national reciprocity. And CCIA has a retired cop exemption for something we did for twenty plus years — full carry . It doesn’t mean we agree with CCIA restrictions.
But the quick answer is yeah , I don’t think they should take something I did everyday for over twenty years for no reason.

Imagine if a cop couldn't give his partner a gun?

Who gives a shit?

Imagine if a father couldn't legally give his son a gun to teach him.

None of what you said bolsters your argument, and the fact that you even are trying to justify it instead of full stop saying "there is no reason" is representative of a much larger issue.

 

[That_FNG]

I think most LE jumped through more hoops to get what has been granted by these lawmakers . Do you I agree with their restrictions? Hell no but don’t advocate take away from me because they screwed you. They will just screw us both.
Why do they give LE and retired LE more leeway on these things ? Some of it is an idea that’s it’s okay for police and retired police to have a gun in their minds as opposed to regular people . It’s their misconception. It’s also why security guards can carry but they don’t get it that a business owner or just a regular person is their own security gusrd
The other reason is no one would become a police officer/peace officer if they knew they would be disarmed when they retire
Another reason is that police and peace officer gun handling was much more regulated than someone with permit before CCIA. The type, caliber of the gun and how it’s carried is covered by department regulations. Some departments are leant , others are strict . Some departments only allow the officer to carry one specific gun, on or off duty . Others could carry whatever they wanted. Some defined what holster and where on the body they could carry .
The law gave active police officers more rights for practical reasons . Imagine if a police officer legally couldn’t hand their gun to their partner -like CCW technically can’t just let another CCW hold someone’s gun except at a range or specific location. The job couldn’t get done . Purchase of firearms — very difficult to go thru the normal process for police departments like the NYPD who hire 3000 people at a pop and they have to buy their guns ( backup guns are still privately bought ). There are practical reasons to these exemptions in the criminal law and they leave it up to their departments.
Unlike most here , I have an opportunity to jump thru more of the required hoops . I have to requalify every year . I had to get more initial formal training than most here as in training hours in addition to that yearly requalification . This isn’t saying I’m better . It’s saying I have more hoops to jump thru.
And yes, federal law lets me go more places because the lack of national reciprocity. And CCIA has a retired cop exemption for something we did for twenty plus years — full carry . It doesn’t mean we agree with CCIA restrictions.
But the quick answer is yeah , I don’t think they should take something I did everyday for over twenty years for no reason.

All I heard was imagine if a civilian had to act like other civilians. If you are not in the military as active military you don’t need weapons of war. If 10 round magazines and featureless firearms are good enough for one civilian to have to defend themselves then that’s plenty good enough for another civilian. If my coworkers have to go thru an extensive process and be awarded a spevial permit before they could touch or carry one of my guns at work , then it should be just fine for any other civilian to do so. The only exceptions for having a full featured firearm with standard capacity magazines should be if it is department issued equipment. Then it should also be restricted to only when a civilian is on duty, and at the end of shift be returned to the department. When off duty the civilian should be only allowed what any other civilian is allowed to have. Oh law enforcement should be exempt and can have full featured firearms with standard capacity magazines because they have received special training? Cool, then any other civilian should be allowed to take the same special training and then be allowed the same things. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Dont worry though, you can just move to a free state.

 

[Acer-m14]

just asking ...

what is the standard capacity of kitchen pressure cooker ..

 

[VietnamEraVet]

The republicans did not have a super majority in the senate. Senators from NY and CA were promising a filibuster and the republicans did not have the 60 votes to end the filibuster. Not to mention Romney would have voted with the Ds. It would not have made it to the floor for a vote in the senate.

I strongly believe Mitch asked Ryan to scuttle it in the house so the Senate would not have to hold a vote and expose all the gun control supporting RINOs and risk losing the Senate as well as the house.

We did not need a super majority in the Senate. You only need 60 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto,- and President Trump said he would sign it if it got to his desk. Hell, we didn’t even need 51 votes in the Senate, as VP Pence could have cast a tie breaking vote if that had happened.

No, that despicable RINO Speaker Paul Ryan kept it bottled up while he built the wall surrounding his estate in upper Wisconsin, until we lost the House courtesy of the RINO’s. Then, when that corrupt ass Pelosi took over, Ryan took a job on the board of Fox News. Fuck him!

 

[dsdmmat]

We did not need a super majority in the Senate. You only need 60 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto,- and President Trump said he would sign it if it got to his desk. Hell, we didn’t even need 51 votes in the Senate, as VP Pence could have cast a tie breaking vote if that had happened.

No, that despicable RINO Speaker Paul Ryan kept it bottled up while he built the wall surrounding his estate in upper Wisconsin, until we lost the House courtesy of the RINO’s. Then, when that corrupt ass Pelosi took over, Ryan took a job on the board of Fox News. Fuck him!

You missed: a filibuster takes 60 votes to end. The NY and CA senators would have filibustered the legislation and it would not have been able to be voted on until the filibuster ended. To do that you would need 60 votes. So yes you would have needed 60 votes to get to vote on the legislation (which after the end of the filibuster would only require 51 votes to pass).

you need 66 votes in the senate and 290 in the house (2/3s majority) to override a presidential veto.

Getting things to pass in the house is checkers, whereas getting things to pass in the senate is chess.

 

[Modean]

I didn't get any special treatment from NYS when I was military, and I guarantee that I have had more firearms training than most LEOs will ever see. NO privileged classes!

 

[Grimscale]

The NY and CA senators would have filibustered the legislation and it would not have been able to be voted on until the filibuster ended.

Then the NY and CA senators would have been outed, publicly, as people against the Constitution.
Yes, we all know they are, but having them get in the way of our Rights would have hurt the Democrats at the polls.

It should have come to a vote.

 

[dsdmmat]

I didn't get any special treatment from NYS when I was military, and I guarantee that I have had more firearms training than most LEOs will ever see. NO privileged classes!

The Praetors have to keep the Praetorian Guard happy thus they lose their grip on power.

 

[dsdmmat]

Then the NY and CA senators would have been outed, publicly, as people against the Constitution.
Yes, we all know they are, but having them get in the way of our Rights would have hurt the Democrats at the polls.

It should have come to a vote.

I agree it should have, but realistically it would not have in the senate. The Republicans would not have been able to break the filibuster, would have appeared weak, and that would have presented a threat to maintaining their slim majority. The Dems would not have suffered one bit for filibustering the legislation. First: No Dem ( save the senator from WV) would have stepped out of line and voted to end the filibuster. Second: the mainstream media would not have covered it. Third: they did not fear re-election challenges as the states they represent are solidly blue and antigun.

 

[repete]

All Police Academy's do this to a point. You almost have to to a certain degree. It is tough to put into words why.

Why? Think back to your army days, who was the 'best badest toughest SOB'? They build you up and instill a sense of pride and elite-ness in you so you KNOW your better than the 'enemy'. Also keep in mind the NYSP calls themselves an elite para military organization.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Also keep in mind the NYSP calls themselves an elite para military organization.

I am recalling a certain photo of an "elite" NYS Trooper with his Eotech mounted backwards...

 

[dsdmmat]

I am recalling a certain photo of an "elite" NYS Trooper with his Eotech mounted backwards...

Yeah but you got to blame the Armor on that one. Most people in these units who are posing for propaganda photo ops couldn’t breakdown and reassemble their weapon properly.

I recall seeing an Army specialist posing with an M240B with the belt inserted backwards. If I recall correctly the caption she put under it was getting ready to qualify. No doubt she was in one of those MOSs that only saw weapons in magazines or on the posters on the wall in the orderly room.

 

[GOPerfect]

Why? Think back to your army days, who was the 'best badest toughest SOB'? They build you up and instill a sense of pride and elite-ness in you so you KNOW your better than the 'enemy'. Also keep in mind the NYSP calls themselves an elite para military organization.

I get this. I remember when I was a young Private, I was invincible.

 

[Beerman]

just asking ...

what is the standard capacity of kitchen pressure cooker ..

Typically, 7 32oz jars or 10 pint-jars. Planning on putting up some foodstuffs?

 

[VietnamEraVet]

You missed: a filibuster takes 60 votes to end. The NY and CA senators would have filibustered the legislation and it would not have been able to be voted on until the filibuster ended. To do that you would need 60 votes. So yes you would have needed 60 votes to get to vote on the legislation (which after the end of the filibuster would only require 51 votes to pass).

you need 66 votes in the senate and 290 in the house (2/3s majority) to override a presidential veto.

Getting things to pass in the house is checkers, whereas getting things to pass in the senate is chess.

I call BS. What filibuster? The Reps were in control of the Senate at that time. Asshole Ryan prevented the Bill from even being voted on in the House. Your posts on this are starting to sound to me like you are / were against National Reciprocity.

 

[Truebeliever]

It's not a grey area. It's illegal and the soldier should refuse.

So this is murder according to you

Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes?

Of the four victims of U.S. operations against al Qaeda since 2009, only one was specifically targeted, AG Holder says

www.cbsnews.com

 

[GOPerfect]

I didn't get any special treatment from NYS when I was military, and I guarantee that I have had more firearms training than most LEOs will ever see. NO privileged classes!

My Military training put my LE to shame. Period. Unless a cop is part of a special division within the department, the Military trains better. period.

Most full fledged civilians that I know are far better trained than the everyday cop.