Comments on: Police Assault Rifles

By: Joat

Joat — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:13:09 +0000

Police are citizens not somehow better or with extra rights, yes they have a dangerous job and yes the need adequate arms for there own defense while doing there job. I’m not anti police, I have great respect for people that go out of their way to find the and deal with dregs of society that I do my best to avoid. It’s just that I have the same right to self defense that they have and I have the same right to own and carry arms for protecting myself and my family. I just wish that the government would recognize that right instead of threatening to imprison me for exercising that right.

Marco wrote a great essay on this subject about 2 weeks ago,

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/if-i-dont-need-it-you-dont-need-it/

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:12:08 +0000

Just as a point of reference the most commonly issued M4 in the military is a three round burst weapon, not fully automatic.

By: tjbbpgob

tjbbpgob — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:54:22 +0000

Sulaco, at least read what I am saying. I know and differentiate between the two (2) shootings, I believe. I was trying to show how many civilians(not bad guys) who will be at risk if the police get semifullyautomatic bullet spraying hoses.

By: B Smith

B Smith — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:21:45 +0000

I think we’re losing sight of the fact that 2A wasn’t written about cops and crooks… no police force existed then. It was written to keep the GOVERNMENT in check, and thereore we ‘civilians’ should be able to posess and and all armament in gov’t inventory.
Also, note Vin Suprynowicz’s argument that “the government can only excercise powers delegated to it by the the people, and you cannot delegate to the government a right or power that you do not already posess”. ‘The Militia’ is you and me!

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:34:30 +0000

The day the cops can only carry nonlethal weaponry is the day the police force no longer is effective and can be thoroughly dismissed. I know if I were a criminal I’d be a hell of a lot bolder knowing NOBODY can kill me, not even the cops.

By: Sulaco

Sulaco — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:16:48 +0000

“…hit a “suspect” 50 times I wonder how many rounds they fired alltogether. The police in that shootout in Californicator.”

Sorry tjbbpgob that shooting was in New York. Sheesh at least get your facts straight…..

By: Carl in Chicago

Carl in Chicago — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:02:02 +0000

Ah yes, I see what you are getting at and that makes more sense….or at least I can better wrap my brain around it.

Yet, to articulate a “police use standard” that would pass court scrutiny, there are two main issues (upper end and lower end) that would have to be worked out. You seem to be working out the lower end (e.g. protections for hunting shotguns and rifles not used by police).

Here are the issues:
1) What is the standard for protected weapons that are not in common use by police?
2) What is the standard for protections that are in use by the police today, yet might not be in the future. For example, there is a movement for police to use more and more non-lethal weapons. Let’s say one day that police are forced to carry stunning tasers instead of tissue-damaging projectile-firing pistols. Would then pistols loose their protected status?

I think you guys are on to something, but there are certainly many potential problems with a standard such as this (as there would be with any standard). I kind of prefer the DC District’s conclusion…that if it’s an arm, then it’s protected. But there are problems with that, too. This is complicated, and I predict that Robert’s urgent question will rule the day in late June – “Why do we need to develop a be-all, end-all standard at this time?” The answer? They don’t.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:32:38 +0000

I also probably didn’t mean to imply that if a firearm were not in common police use it would not be protected, just that if we accept the second amendment protects a right to self-defense, then a police use standard would be a reasonable test. If the government tries to ban a class of firearm that’s under the notion that a person doesn’t need one to defend itself, you resort to the police use exception. The police use it, who are civilians, and probably the best modern day equivalent of the militia, so therefore it is a protected arm.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:29:37 +0000

I didn’t have in mind for it to be that specific. More along the lines of “police use handguns, so all handguns are protected” or “police use semi-automatic rifles, so all semi-automatic rifles are protected”. I think the courts are going to be loath to get down a great level of detail in what arms are and aren’t protected. I think it’s more a matter what classes of arms are protected, and which aren’t.

By: Carl in Chicago

Carl in Chicago — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:24:12 +0000

Sebastian said: “Would a good test for the second amendment be any arm that’s in common police use is protected?”

With all due respect (and that’s a lot), I disagree – strongly – and think that would be an absurd and unreasonably exclusive standard. An old double-barreled fowling piece is certainly not in common police use, nor is a single-shot .22 farm-pest control rifle…yet it would be absurd to argue that the founders didn’t intend for the possession of such firearms be protected under the 2A. There may indeed be some potentially useful and reasonable “tests” for what comprises protected arms, but a “common police use” standard is certainly not one of them.