Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
"We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."
"We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself."
-
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.
-
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.
LAPD believes only police should have the right to protect their bodies with body armor
- Thread starter wayneco
- Start date
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
Deanimator wrote:
Or the more succinct version: FOAD.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
N6ATF wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
Indeed. I am shocked the gov't could be so oxymoronic. ##Insert fake shocked emoticon here##
imported post
I have two important things to add which I think are relevant:
1) Federal law prohibits felons from possessing body armor unless required by an employer. See 18 U.S.C. section 931 "Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons"
2) The body armor used by the bank robbers in the North Hollywood incident was homemade. This is one of those fine details that isn't always reported. It is mentioned here: http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/crime/body-armor-appeal-urged/
If CA catches a felon with body armor, all this law does it allow them to drop yet another charge on him because his ownership of the armor is already illegal at the federal level.
I don't believe in making it a crime to use body armor in the commission of a crime. I have difficulty seeing how any crime becomes more serious merely based on the fact that the perpetrator is wearing body armor.
I have two important things to add which I think are relevant:
1) Federal law prohibits felons from possessing body armor unless required by an employer. See 18 U.S.C. section 931 "Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons"
2) The body armor used by the bank robbers in the North Hollywood incident was homemade. This is one of those fine details that isn't always reported. It is mentioned here: http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/crime/body-armor-appeal-urged/
If CA catches a felon with body armor, all this law does it allow them to drop yet another charge on him because his ownership of the armor is already illegal at the federal level.
I don't believe in making it a crime to use body armor in the commission of a crime. I have difficulty seeing how any crime becomes more serious merely based on the fact that the perpetrator is wearing body armor.
Huck
Regular Member
imported post
This crap about how only LEOs should be allowed to have body armor would be like the Fire Department saying that only Firefighters should be allowed to own fire extinguishers since it is'nt the average citizen's job to fight fires. Both body armor and fire extiguishers are safety devices.
This crap about how only LEOs should be allowed to have body armor would be like the Fire Department saying that only Firefighters should be allowed to own fire extinguishers since it is'nt the average citizen's job to fight fires. Both body armor and fire extiguishers are safety devices.
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
wayneco wrote:
wayneco wrote:
Full Faith and Credit Clause.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
Tawnos wrote:
Tawnos wrote:
They DON'T ACCEPT them in all instances.
Tawnos
Regular Member
imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
simmonsjoe wrote:
Hasn't actually been tried in court yet. Note that for the FF&CC, domestic partnerships don't count, unfortunately.
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
Huck wrote:
I absolutely LOVE this post! You pretty much summed up every bit of point possible made for individuals exercising their rights.
Yesterday I was treated to a showing of just how much the average citizen's safety is monitored and protected by the State Patrol who saw my truck broken down in 12 degree weather on the interstate but who sat within spitting distance the entire time I was on the side of the road which was almost 2 hours. As I waited for the blazing traffic to nail me into oblivion, I saw the officer look my way, then back to his radar gun. He was obviously more interested in creating a criminal than looking to ensure the safety of someone whose circumstances put him in harm's way.
From now on I will make sure I remember this event whenever I hear of law "enforcement" crying for safety funds or gear. And I will remember to laugh harder at the security measures they employ to secure their own.
Huck wrote:
I absolutely LOVE this post! You pretty much summed up every bit of point possible made for individuals exercising their rights.
Yesterday I was treated to a showing of just how much the average citizen's safety is monitored and protected by the State Patrol who saw my truck broken down in 12 degree weather on the interstate but who sat within spitting distance the entire time I was on the side of the road which was almost 2 hours. As I waited for the blazing traffic to nail me into oblivion, I saw the officer look my way, then back to his radar gun. He was obviously more interested in creating a criminal than looking to ensure the safety of someone whose circumstances put him in harm's way.
From now on I will make sure I remember this event whenever I hear of law "enforcement" crying for safety funds or gear. And I will remember to laugh harder at the security measures they employ to secure their own.
okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
Glad you survived without harm, opusd2.
Glad you survived without harm, opusd2.
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks.
Thanks.
imported post
It seems reasonable to me that the right to bear arms should include the right to own body armor. Body armor is a technology that wasn't in widespread use at the time the Constitution was written. It is in widespread use now among the police and military, and so (to me) this means it should be readily available to the people as well.
I can't wait to see the day when they invent a new type of laser gun or something and traditional firearms technology becomes obsolete. I'm sure we'll be told that the right to bear arms doesn't cover laser guns and so only the police and military should be allowed to have them.
It seems reasonable to me that the right to bear arms should include the right to own body armor. Body armor is a technology that wasn't in widespread use at the time the Constitution was written. It is in widespread use now among the police and military, and so (to me) this means it should be readily available to the people as well.
I can't wait to see the day when they invent a new type of laser gun or something and traditional firearms technology becomes obsolete. I'm sure we'll be told that the right to bear arms doesn't cover laser guns and so only the police and military should be allowed to have them.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Lank wrote:
Lank wrote:
That already came true with machineguns and other class 3 items. Sure you can own one, just make sure you pay and register so we can take it from you later on. And oh, by the way, we are the Only Ones who can buy one made after 1986 (thanks, Reagan).
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
I'm not looking forward to registering my light saber. Pity the inventor who manages to come up with a weapon straight out of a Sci-Fi flick and who doesn't register it right away.
I'm not looking forward to registering my light saber. Pity the inventor who manages to come up with a weapon straight out of a Sci-Fi flick and who doesn't register it right away.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
opusd2 wrote:
opusd2 wrote:
Me neither.
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Oh well...
Tomahawk wrote:
That 1986 machine gun ban really needs to be repealed, but I have a feeling its never gonna happen. Even many machine gun owners wouldn't approve of it because it would cause their $15,000 pre-1986 M16s to suddenly become worthless.
Oh well...
wayneco
Regular Member
imported post
Has anyone ever challenged the May 1986 new manufacture cutoff date for civilian ownership of post-built machine guns?
That needs to be challenged in the wake of Heller, especially since it is only between the prospective purchaser and the US Federal Government.
Has anyone ever challenged the May 1986 new manufacture cutoff date for civilian ownership of post-built machine guns?
That needs to be challenged in the wake of Heller, especially since it is only between the prospective purchaser and the US Federal Government.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
wayneco wrote:
wayneco wrote:
I've been thinking for a while now that an full-auto AR or AK is a state-of-the-art militia arm. Just ask the Swiss.
simmonsjoe
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Yes, this is why I am upset the new VA firearms freedom act excludes automatic weapons. It stops just short of allowing us to meet the requirements of the unregulated militia.
Bustelo5%
Regular Member
imported post
I must say back on topic that there should be no restriction of the sale or possesion of body armor at all unless in the commission of a crime. In the security field weather your a retiree or a 20 year old kid you can get shot at also. Badge=target. I can see this back firing,I think it actually was in the news a security officer purchased a vest on monday and got shot on tuesday and survived.
Weather your a range officer going to a tactical jack bauer conference its your body not Californias period.
I must say back on topic that there should be no restriction of the sale or possesion of body armor at all unless in the commission of a crime. In the security field weather your a retiree or a 20 year old kid you can get shot at also. Badge=target. I can see this back firing,I think it actually was in the news a security officer purchased a vest on monday and got shot on tuesday and survived.
Weather your a range officer going to a tactical jack bauer conference its your body not Californias period.