• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Close the Police Loophole

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

[h=2]What is the police loophole?[/h]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.
[h=2]What is this list?[/h]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.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Is liberty always a loophole?

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
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...:p
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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 ...
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
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.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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….
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Deacon Blues

Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
124
Location
Birmingham, AL
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

and have them walk their beat...cars are for sissies! :)

...and have them come from the actual communities they police.
 

ldsgeek

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
103
Location
New Hampshire
...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.
 
Top