• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Legal question

Babykat said:
In which state. Because it’s not a requirement in every state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Interesting-because here in Ohio, that is certainly the case.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Show me where in the second amendment it stipulates that you have to have a federal license. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. But the original question in this thread is why a elected civilian police officer could carry firearms that a regular civilian can’t. My answer is they can’t. If consider the officer getting elected as his license to carry these firearms. Which the government is the people through elections. Then with proper licenses a civilian can own these firearms as well. Although the 2nd amendment doesn’t require restrictions on the purchase or ownership of any weapons. It also doesn’t directly forbid it either. Do I agree with these restrictions, no. But that doesn’t change the current laws. But under the current laws it is legal for a civilian to own these firearms in most states with the proper license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
Interesting-because here in Ohio, that is certainly the case.
Click to expand...

I have never purchased firearms in Ohio. What you are saying is that it’s kind of like Tennessee where part of the Form 1 or Form 4 approval process requires that you need to get local Chief Law Enforcement Official (Sheriff or Chief of City Police) to sign off on your form. Although several years ago TN passed a bill that makes it a SHALL SIGN state which means the Sheriff or Chief MUST sign approval for your transfer unless there is something in your NCIS background check that would otherwise prevent it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
And we all agree that police-due to their duties can carry those weapons in areas other civilians cannot. But claiming that there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to be able to own in his own home, such a firearm is specious.
Click to expand...
Which is why I didn’t make that claim.

And Citizens cannot choose when they may be placed in a dangerous situation by a criminal, while cops generally have warning and back up. Besides, the second amendment does not make such line drawing.
Click to expand...
Most police officers do not carry weapons unavailable to regular citizens. Generally speaking, the restricted weapons are brought out when there is believed to be a need to up the fire power.

You really can not compare the carrying and use of weapons by police officers to that of civilians: there are just too many differences in reasons and intent.

“shall not be infringed,” does not mean not subject to any regulations or restrictions. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws in DC and Chicago were restrictive enough to be infringements, but that doesn’t mean all are. The Federal Assault Weapons ban was stupid, pointless, and just plain wrong: but it wasn’t unconstitutional.
 
Wayne Jr said:
*loan

Are you arguing that the government should merely loan M16s to civilians? Because I thought the amendment said "keep and bear"...you don't keep something loaned to you...

The basis of your argument is that civilians should be able to own M16s because police own M16s, but the police do not own M16s. This undermines your entire thesis.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but police do own automatic weapons that aren't loaners.
 
HK.227 said:
Not being American, I was wondering about something regarding State gun laws in the US.

I admire the principle of the citizen police force (citizens elected by other citizens to enforce the Law). I find it to be one of the soundest principles in a nation run for the benefit of the citizens rather than some aristocracy. But how are laws justified that allow said police to carry arms that are not legal for the ordinary citizen? If the uniform is just a sign that this is a citizen employed to enforce the law full time, rather than conferring various legal immunities, why aren't they subject to gun laws? What is the legal justification?
Click to expand...

Firearm laws vary considerably from State to State. Some States are very restrictive, even infringing on the rights of its citizens (like Hawaii), and some States are very liberal and impose no restrictions whatsoever (like Alaska). In the more liberal States you may own any firearm you like. You may even own weapons that are prohibited to law enforcement, such as machine guns, mortars, artillery pieces, tanks, and even fully functional fighter aircraft. Those weapons are under very close scrutiny and regulation by the federal government, but they are legal for citizens to own.

As a general rule, anywhere you find a State that is under Democrat control, there will be massive amount of gun control laws infringing on the rights of their citizens. Where Republicans are in control, the gun control laws are either non-existent, or very limited.
 
pinqy said:
Not the individual officers; the department. There is a distinct and important differencr
Click to expand...

Never said they did. Just pointing out that police departments do have automatic weapons that aren't loaners
 
pinqy said:
Which is why I didn’t make that claim.


Most police officers do not carry weapons unavailable to regular citizens. Generally speaking, the restricted weapons are brought out when there is believed to be a need to up the fire power.

You really can not compare the carrying and use of weapons by police officers to that of civilians: there are just too many differences in reasons and intent.

“shall not be infringed,” does not mean not subject to any regulations or restrictions. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws in DC and Chicago were restrictive enough to be infringements, but that doesn’t mean all are. The Federal Assault Weapons ban was stupid, pointless, and just plain wrong: but it wasn’t unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

so tell me where YOU think the line should be drawn. I think the line is between individual weapons versus crew served weapons or weapons that are designed to attack an area rather than a specific target.
 
Maccabee said:
Maybe so, but police do own automatic weapons that aren't loaners.
Click to expand...

Great, so the equivalent of that is a local gun club authorized by the State Governor who can own automatic weapons which only official dues-paying card-carrying background-checked 6-month-academy-trained club members can use, and only for official club purposes which are subject to independant oversite and review.

Don't forget the mandatory registration and mandatory insurance.

....because no, individual police officers do NOT own automatic weapons.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Great, so the equivalent of that is a local gun club authorized by the State Governor who can own automatic weapons which only official dues-paying card-carrying background-checked 6-month-academy-trained club members can use, and only for official club purposes which are subject to independant oversite and review.

Don't forget the mandatory registration and mandatory insurance.

....because no, individual police officers do NOT own automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

They can
 
Wayne Jr said:
....not.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that police officers cannot buy automatic weapons the same as other citizens can? You do know that the last recorded murder committed by a legal machine gun owner was a Dayton Ohio police officer

Its fun watching this sort of erroneous claim. I know at least 6 police officers who personally own machine guns.
 
Mycroft said:
Good question. I'd love to see how our resident gun control supporters answer it.
Click to expand...
Well, first off our police are elected citizens - they're trained professionals that a long period of training including how to use those weapons. Second, a cardinal rule of law enforcement is to avoid "fair fights", e.g. seek to have as much force advantage as possible.
 
TurtleDude said:
So you are saying that police officers cannot buy automatic weapons the same as other citizens can?
Click to expand...
...:roll:...a police officer, as a police officer (meaning in the performance of their official duties), cannot buy for himself an automatic weapon, no. The FFL that sells automatic weapons to the department is not allowed to sell those same automatic weapons to individuals, even police officers.

TurtleDude said:
I know at least 6 police officers who personally own machine guns.
Click to expand...
Then you know at least 6 felons because the only way around the NFA is to have a Trust own the firearm for you.

You do not know 6 police officers who personally own machine guns. You know 6 private persons who own Trusts that own machine guns for them and those private persons are also employed as police officers, where they do not carry their Trust-owned machineguns on-duty.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
...:roll:...a police officer, as a police officer (meaning in the performance of their official duties), cannot buy for himself an automatic weapon, no. The FFL that sells automatic weapons to the department is not allowed to sell those same automatic weapons to individuals, even police officers.


Then you know at least 6 felons because the only way around the NFA is to have a Trust own the firearm for you.

You do not know 6 police officers who personally own machine guns. You know 6 private persons who own Trusts that own machine guns for them and those private persons are also employed as police officers, where they do not carry their Trust-owned machineguns on-duty.
Click to expand...

You are not telling the truth

You are claiming that a police officer cannot go into a dealership that has legal machine guns for sale, and buy one the same way I could when I was a DOJ attorney (federal law enforcement officer for those who don't understand what I was)

SO that is what you are saying? Because you are either saying that and you are WRONG, or you are changing what I said and claiming they cannot buy currently made machine guns that their department may buy and that would be dishonest.
 
TurtleDude said:
.
Click to expand...
Turtle, your whole argument of 'if police can have them then so should regular citizens' argument is a False Equivalency fallacy, meaning that police do not own automatic weapons the way you want regular people to own automatic weapons, for your comparison between police and citizens to then be valid.

The only valid comparison would be a Trust who own machineguns for the purpose of letting its members perform neighborhood watch or similar civic duties with them. Even then you couldn't use reasonably priced modern assault rifles, you would have to stay with retardedly over-priced Vietnam era antiques.

I would wish the above Trust good luck with their first civil suit when those guns are used, too, as militia do not have the benefit of tax revenue.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are claiming that a police officer cannot go into a dealership that has legal machine guns for sale, and buy one the same way I could when I was a DOJ attorney.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said at all. I was extremely clear.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Turtle, your whole argument of 'if police can have them then so should regular citizens' argument is a False Equivalency fallacy, meaning that police do not own automatic weapons the way you want regular people to own automatic weapons, for your comparison between police and citizens to then be valid.

The only valid comparison would be a Trust who own machineguns for the purpose of letting its members perform neighborhood watch or similar civic duties with them. Even then you couldn't use reasonably priced modern assault rifles, you would have to stay with retardedly over-priced Vietnam era antiques.

I would wish the above Trust good luck with their first civil suit when those guns are used, too, as militia do not have the benefit of tax revenue.
Click to expand...

YOu are not accurately conveying what I have said.
 
TurtleDude said:
Wayne Jr said:
...:roll:...a police officer, as a police officer (meaning in the performance of their official duties), cannot buy for himself an automatic weapon, no.
Click to expand...
You are not telling the truth.
Click to expand...
If cops can buy modern assault rifles that they personally own (not the department, the individual), I'll literally become a cop. Please source how this is don.
 
WCH said:
I agre but, not sure what weapons the cops have that I don't. Do they carry full auto?
Click to expand...

I remember going on a trip in college that was sponsored by the Criminal Justice department there. We got to go to DC and ride along with the cops there. During our stay they showed us a pretty insane arsenal of stuff they had. Decked out M4's and things like that. But I think it was more for SWAT situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom