Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Close the Police Loophole

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Close the Police Loophole

    http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

    What is the police loophole?

    There are some states, counties, cities, and municipalities in our great nation that fail to allow their citizens to fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms with restrictions such as magazine capacity or types of firearms. However, these government entities do not place these restrictions upon their own employees, such as police officers.
    What is this list?

    This is a list of companies that have taken the step to publicly announce that they will not sell items to states, counties, cities, and municipalities that restrict their citizens rights to own them; therefore closing the "police loophole" themselves. It is important to note that we are against gun control; we are not against any particular government agency or individuals.
    Let's get this loophole closed before someone is killed because of the high-capacity ammunition magazine clips these police flaunt in our faces every day.
    stay safe.



    If Pro-Gunners were as violent as Anti-Gunners say they are, logic would dictate that there would be no Anti-Gunners left.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581

    Close the Police Loophole

    Is liberty always a loophole?

    7 rounds. 13 rounds. 33 rounds. Criminals aren't impeded by math.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider116 View Post
    Is liberty always a loophole?

    7 rounds. 13 rounds. 33 rounds. Criminals aren't impeded by math.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    But what is the need for the police to have this kind of firepower? We have seen what they do with it in New York City with their spray and pray shooting tactics. It is time to make innocent law abiding citizens safe from their reckless behavior. Not all police are reckless but there are enough incidents of them shooting innocents, or even in one case a disabled one armed, one leg man.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  4. #4
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: Close the Police Loophole

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But what is the need for the police to have this kind of firepower? We have seen what they do with it in New York City with their spray and pray shooting tactics. It is time to make innocent law abiding citizens safe from their reckless behavior. Not all police are reckless but there are enough incidents of them shooting innocents, or even in one case a disabled one armed, one leg man.
    Well he could have been a yoga/jedi master...attempting to perform the ever popular draw from ankle holster while levitating manuver....geesh...come on guys...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I don't complain about what arms/equipment the police have ... I use it as evidence that they have 'em for public/common defense .. and what? That's one of the same reasons why we should have them.

    But I understand people wanting to highlight this and wishing to take action upon it ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't complain about what arms/equipment the police have ... I use it as evidence that they have 'em for public/common defense .. and what? That's one of the same reasons why we should have them.

    But I understand people wanting to highlight this and wishing to take action upon it ...
    Doesn't the fact that the police and military have them in "common use" mean that according to US v Miller they also allowable for "civilian use"?


    Since they screwed up when they disallowed the use of "sawed off shotguns" because they didn't know that the Army used them, especially in WWI:
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
    The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But what is the need for the police to have this kind of firepower? We have seen what they do with it in New York City with their spray and pray shooting tactics.
    Not surprising, given how much moral hazard cop shooting rules create.

  8. #8
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But what is the need for the police to have this kind of firepower? We have seen what they do with it in New York City with their spray and pray shooting tactics. It is time to make innocent law abiding citizens safe from their reckless behavior. Not all police are reckless but there are enough incidents of them shooting innocents, or even in one case a disabled one armed, one leg man.
    I agree.

    The only "need" is that the police are NOT law enforcement anymore, they are order maintenance. And as such, they need to have sufficient firepower to keep the "average joe" in line. The entire argument of "officer safety" is a straw dog...the police choose to go into danger, the average citizen does not.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Doesn't the fact that the police and military have them in "common use" mean that according to US v Miller they also allowable for "civilian use"?


    :
    That's what both the government said and the court said ... quotes ...

    US v. Miller, 307 US 174, United States Supreme Court, 1939
    In the Supreme Court case the United States government (US DOJ) brief before the court stated:
    …While some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property as well as the right of the people to bear them collectively (People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455), the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes…

    And the court issued out a final opinion that stated:
    …In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158….

  10. #10
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But what is the need for the police to have this kind of firepower? We have seen what they do with it in New York City with their spray and pray shooting tactics. It is time to make innocent law abiding citizens safe from their reckless behavior. Not all police are reckless but there are enough incidents of them shooting innocents, or even in one case a disabled one armed, one leg man.
    Nevermind NYC, look at what they did in L.A. and Torrance. They riddled two vehicles which in NO WAY resembled Dorner's except in the number of wheels and axles, and almost killed three innocent people.

    Every day it becomes more apparent to me that we should follow the example of a 19th century governor of New York who wanted to arm the state militia with clubs. The LAPD and Torrance PD should have their guns taken away and replaced with wooden sticks.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Nevermind NYC, look at what they did in L.A. and Torrance. They riddled two vehicles which in NO WAY resembled Dorner's except in the number of wheels and axles, and almost killed three innocent people.

    Every day it becomes more apparent to me that we should follow the example of a 19th century governor of New York who wanted to arm the state militia with clubs. The LAPD and Torrance PD should have their guns taken away and replaced with wooden sticks.
    And whistles. Gotta give 'em whistles with their wooden sticks.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And whistles. Gotta give 'em whistles with their wooden sticks.
    and have them walk their beat...cars are for sissies! :-)
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  13. #13
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    But what is the need for the police to have this kind of firepower? We have seen what they do with it in New York City with their spray and pray shooting tactics. It is time to make innocent law abiding citizens safe from their reckless behavior. Not all police are reckless but there are enough incidents of them shooting innocents, or even in one case a disabled one armed, one leg man.
    The supposed need has always been, "well, the criminals have [insert trait here], so we need them too." This was the rationale behind switching from revolvers to autoloaders, for instance. What resulted, unfortunately, was a decrease in marksmanship and an increase in rounds fired.

    So, if gun control actually works (and we know it doesn't), then gun bans not only eliminate weapons, but they also eliminate the need for LE to counter them. E.g., if the thugs don't have "high-capacity" magazines, then the police don't need to have them either. This creates a hard link between the efficacy of gun control in general and LE disarmament.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Nevermind NYC, look at what they did in L.A. and Torrance. They riddled two vehicles which in NO WAY resembled Dorner's except in the number of wheels and axles, and almost killed three innocent people.

    Every day it becomes more apparent to me that we should follow the example of a 19th century governor of New York who wanted to arm the state militia with clubs. The LAPD and Torrance PD should have their guns taken away and replaced with wooden sticks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And whistles. Gotta give 'em whistles with their wooden sticks.
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    and have them walk their beat...cars are for sissies! :-)
    ...and have them come from the actual communities they police.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    ...and have them come from the actual communities they police.
    The reason that they don't is similar to the reason that, in militarist societies such as China (communist version) and the old USSR, the soldiers tasked with "protecting" an area were always from somewhere else. That is, so they wouldn't have to worry about the locals not turning their weapons on friends and family when ordered to do so.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •