A Question.

[American]

Well, if my experience is any guide, the psychological testing of LEOs must leave a lot to be desired, since about 20% are assholes or half-crazy. :mrgreen:

My main concerns about psych testing for 2A stuff is who gets to define where the bar is, what is normal, and the potential for abuse... if those issues could be adequately addressed I might change my mind.

The anti-gun American Psychological Association makes a living do that. :mrgreen:

 

[American]

Sheriffs police take their weapons home like most police officers.

So they're taking M16's home?

 

[ChrisL]

Ummm... yes one representative says this AFTER they got caught...

"I think it's much more questionable whether we should allow peace officers to have access to weapons or firearms that a private citizen wouldn't have access to if the use is strictly personal," said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, a Democrat who represents the Sacramento region.

The information was obtained through a California Public Records Act request filed after federal authorities served search warrants in November as part of ongoing investigation into allegations of illegal weapons sales by several Sacramento-area law enforcement officers.

The investigation has raised questions about the kinds of restricted weapons that the more than 87,000 peace officers in the state are entitled to purchase and about a 2001 law that allows them to buy assault weapons "for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty."

The sad part is in the end nothing was changed, nothing.

The state Department of Fish and Game is among several state agencies that allow officers to buy assault weapons and use them while off-duty.

"I don't know exactly what they're using them for," department spokesman Patrick Foy said. "What they're not using them for is patrol, I can tell you that."



Please point out where it says this?

Effective immediately, peace officers who have legislative authority to carry and use firearms may, without a letter signed by the head of their agency or the agency head's designee, purchase non-rostered handguns and/or large capacity magazines. The peace officer must present a valid peace officer identification card and the dealer must retain a copy of the identification card on file. (PC 12132 & 12133). A letter is still required from the head of the agency to exempt the peace officer from the ten day waiting period. (PC 12078). - Policy Change Regarding State Exemptions for Authorized Peace Officers | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

Aren't peace officers police?

Also, you even said they "got caught." So it's not as if this was okay. Obviously somebody isn't doing their job and are lax with the police officers. Normally they aren't supposed to do that.

 

[Black Dog]

So they're taking M16's home?

My friend on the Will County Sheriffs police does as do the rest that bought them. And they are not M16's, AR-15's.

In the case I posted in CA yes they are. Other departments do this as well. Most departments do not even keep track of an officers weapons. That last part is a blanket statement based on my personal experience. Take it with a grain of salt as it is anecdotal.

 

[Black Dog]

Aren't peace officers police?

Yes it's their ID cards. They all have them. It is not "a special permit" in any way. It just identifies them as police.

Also, you even said they "got caught." So it's not as if this was okay. Obviously somebody isn't doing their job and are lax with the police officers. Normally they aren't supposed to do that.

I never said they did not "get caught" I said they did nothing about it. In fact they then made it easier. Unfortunatly, yes they are able to do that look at the law. It is the same for MOST police departments. In fact some are much worse. I can't figure out why you are trying to deny this. I am just pointing out CA as it is a blatant example.

As I said this is wrong, so we agree on the premise. Where we disagree is you think that if they only use them on duty and can't take them home etc it's OK. I say no because the police should not be #1 exempt or above any law that the people are not. and #2 Armed better than the peoples whose rights are restricted by a law they (law enforcement) can ignore.

 

[Crimefree]

can anyone fashion a rational argument that weapons that government bureaucrats find MOST suitable for civilian police employees to deploy against criminals in a municipal environment, should also be found to be so dangerous that no other honest civilian should even be allowed to merely possess such firearms?

I sure cannot

Is there any reason citizens should be restricted at all? If so what is this reason based on?

Possibly better questions are why do citizens put up with such rubbish and think it will do some good? What are such people hoping for and why do they think restrictions can gain this hope? What happened to common sense? Did it fly out the window or is something else happening?

 

[Jerry]

Is there any reason citizens should be restricted at all? If so what is this reason based on?

Possibly better questions are why do citizens put up with such rubbish and think it will do some good? What are such people hoping for and why do they think restrictions can gain this hope? What happened to common sense? Did it fly out the window or is something else happening?

There is no such thing as common sense.

 

[Crimefree]

There is no such thing as common sense.

OK let me rephrase for the distractions from the question. Lets say what is assumed to be common knowledge as the majority know this to be a fact or desirable state. Will that help you answer the question now that it is clearer? ie look before crossing the road. It is assumed everyone knows why.

 

[Jerry]

Will that help you answer the question now that it is clearer?

I thought your questions were rhetorical, so I wasn't trying to answer them.

ie look before crossing the road. It is assumed everyone knows why.

More importantly, look to your left, first. A lot of people miss that detail.

 

[Jerry]

Since you're actualy looking for answers:

Is there any reason citizens should be restricted at all?

Mental deficiancy or propencity for violence.

If so what is this reason based on?

Inability or unwillingness to use the item apropratly.

Possibly better questions are why do citizens put up with such rubbish and think it will do some good?

They're fearfull.

What are such people hoping for and why do they think restrictions can gain this hope?

There is no goal. The state of hoping is what they want. They aren't hoping for anything, they're just hoping. Its an open-ended emotional meme which means anything the indivigual wants it to mean.

What happened to common sense?

Common sense does not exist.

Did it fly out the window or is something else happening?

Common sense never existed in the first place, for something to have happened to it.

 

[Crimefree]

I thought your questions were rhetorical, so I wasn't trying to answer them.

More importantly, look to your left, first. A lot of people miss that detail.

No Jerry I don't ask rhetorical questions. If the answer is obvious I certainly don't know the answer which is why I asked. An answer would be appreciated.

 

[Crimefree]

Since you're actualy looking for answers:

Thanks.

Mental deficiancy or propencity for violence.

Should this also apply to drivers licences then? Perhaps other instruments or tools?

Inability or unwillingness to use the item apropratly.

Is there a test for this and what is the test accuracy? We know from records of firearm sales and possession the number citizens have. A deficiency of this requirement must show up in accidents and accidental deaths. Is that a concern for firearm possession?

Is it a concern for motor vehicle possession?

They're fearfull.

Yes they are but this is no reason to have legislation based on just fears. Maybe those fears should be addressed so the demand of gun control is reduced?

There is no goal. The state of hoping is what they want. They aren't hoping for anything, they're just hoping. Its an open-ended emotional meme which means anything the indivigual wants it to mean.

May I suggest that if fear is involved they certainly want relief from that fear. That is a priority for them. Nobody wants to live in fear.

Common sense does not exist.
Common sense never existed in the first place, for something to have happened to it.

Well its an accepted and known term for what ever passes for it.