Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Yes but they can hold and test the sample ie be in possession of it.
What is the LEO exemption? What can they own that we can't?
- Thread starter Target
- Start date
Yes but they can hold and test the sample ie be in possession of it.
Puts You and I at a serious disadvantage too, Dipshit! I'll keep mine while you....well...die!
IrishMick
.44 mag
Not bashing or trolling but, why is there a LEO exemption for ownership or even having these "assault weapons" in the line of duty? If we are to believe that these "weapons of war" have only one purpose which is to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time as touted by the MSM and Politicians. Why would LEO need them? Unless the mission they're tasked with is killing many folks is short order or waging war on the population. If that is not their mission they don't need these death machines at all. Back to .38 S&Ws for them. Nobody needs 10 boolits to kill a perp!
I often use that argument. No good answer yet.
Target
6.5 Creedmoor
Im less jealous of an AR. We all have those.
Why can they buy something like the Intratec or a Mac-10 semi with 32 rd magazines?
Why can they buy something like the Intratec or a Mac-10 semi with 32 rd magazines?
IrishMick
.44 mag
Not trying to stir up shit and not jealous (well maybe a little). Just saying that by following the narrative spewed forth from TPTB and the MSM and applying critical thinking the LEO exemption falls apart. This also applies to almost all Federal and State agencies. Hell, the IRS shouldn't even exist never mind being armed.
There is no good reason. None at all. Some say the exemption was put in place to get Departments to back the SAFE Act, some say the wording was there so that politicians would not lose the support of the LE community.
I think both of those reasons are hogwash. I really think that politicians truly believe that cops are all well trained.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Sorry but have you seen our shooting stats?-lol
Do not give them any more cannon fodder. They will be quicker to lower police Officer magazines than increase lawful gun owner’s.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The exception was not put in place for departments to back it . The exception for retired LEOs was put in more than a year after it passed.
They were guilted into it. It was also a question of costs. The individual officer who often buys their own guns would be forced to buy a product they can’t own otherwise. It was a legal/cost issue .
Whatever the reason, I find these exemptions to be pure shit. As for your example of officers buying guns and stuff and not being able to keep it; welcome to the world of the everyday NY citizen.
Sorry I could care less if they lower Officer magazine count to that of a law abiding gun owner. In fact, I hope they do it in the next legislative session. Think I will call my assemblyman and senator to suggest it.
Last edited:
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It’s for the new cop. They can’t require that he or she buy property for the job that they can’t keep legally keep under any circumstances after leaving. I don’t know if that is a union, OSHA, or other legal reason.
I know it because LE departments tried to get a taser bill past to allow licensed tasers a few years ago. That way they could force cops to buy it rather than their departments paying for it. But because the bill didn’t go anyway , so departments paid for the standard issue tasers.
I don’t know if this has changed in the past few years. But I remember the issue before I was issued my first taser.
I get some of this, I do. When I got hired, I must have spent over $1500 when all was said and done.
Still does not make it okay to take from one group and allow another to be exempt from those rules, laws and regulations.
I'll just never get how any of this is the cops' faults. No one upstate forgoes getting a carry permit because their fellow gun-loving NY'ers in the City can't. Or maybe even the county next door. I made it clear early on that part of the reason I was never interested in the fire department, a FAR better job, was because of the lack of guns and having to deal with NYC permits.
The politicians who create this crap fully believe that only cops and private security should have guns, there's no denying that. Some cops agree, but so do a hell of a lot of civilians too. We'll likely never defeat this mindset in NY, so the SCOTUS is our only chance.
The politicians who create this crap fully believe that only cops and private security should have guns, there's no denying that. Some cops agree, but so do a hell of a lot of civilians too. We'll likely never defeat this mindset in NY, so the SCOTUS is our only chance.
I agree AB, not the fault of the officer. Hell, I know some that took the job so they could own certain things.
The Pistol Permit thing, I think is even worse. NY and its politicians just suck!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If the cop never enforced gun laws to begin with and honored his oath, there would be no further gun laws that’ll require him to take advantage of an exemption.
spat
.950 JDJ
Even if 99% of them refused to enforce these laws, there will always be the 1% that would ship their own mother to a death camp if ordered.
1% is all it takes.
Certainly things would be better if 99% refused categorically to enforce any "possession of x" laws, but it wouldn't solve the problem.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Well thank god that they don’t enforce adultery laws.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
I’m just explaining the exception was not because they wanted to be good with the police. There is a reason it’s just an exception to the service gun and why it was granted.
Same old arguments. I'm not going to feel any worse for taking advantage of laws that pertain to me than you should for taking advantage of laws that pertain to you.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don’t think anyone is against you having 30 rounders. What they are against is you arresting me for having 30 rounders.
M_F
.45 acp
Since they can own NFA toys like silencers, SBR, SBS, how about transferable pre 1986 full autos?
Target
6.5 Creedmoor
It's the non work related stuff.
It's as if police , corrections officers and peace officers live in a free state.
How does a full featured AK or the Tec 9 linked to in the OP, fit into their work gear?
It's as if police , corrections officers and peace officers live in a free state.
How does a full featured AK or the Tec 9 linked to in the OP, fit into their work gear?
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Possession? Absolutely legal for active LEO under NYS law. Federal? I don’t know.
Purchase? How would that legally happen? I don’t know any FFL in this state that would make that sale and risk the loss of their NYS license.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The exact moment they retire and are in possession of it, they are committing a felony unless they qualified with it with their department.
spat
.950 JDJ
If they're smart, they are living in a free state using their last couple weeks of vacation when their retirement becomes official
Truebeliever is right, most of the Safe Act applies anyway once a cop retires.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Not necessarily depending on a lot of factors. I knew a cop that did overtime on his last day for pension reasons.If they're smart, they are living in a free state using their last couple weeks of vacation when their retirement becomes official
M_F
.45 acp
There are class III dealers in NY that sell to police departments. My question is if an individual PO submits a tax stamp for a pre 1986 full auto can they legally purchase and posses unrelated to their police duties? I doubt there are any class III dealers in NY that would transfer to an individual officer, but if they're exempt under NY law it doesn’t appear to be illegal to do so.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
I do not know about the purchase.
The possession is yes. They can possess it. Same way if it was issued directly by their job.
Remember that the penal law is not the only law covering such transactions . So the best answer I can give you is I don’t know.