LEO using 77R for banned "assault" weapons?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,191
    Davidsonville
    I don’t understand the background check for the HQL. When you do the MSP paperwork they do a background check. The prints for the HQL doesn’t do any more of a background check then the one done at the point of sale. For long guns it is just a NICS check which isn’t as in-depth as the check when MSP does it.

    Police don’t get so skip the background check on normal purchases and requiring it for the HQL is just redundant.
    yeah, I may have not been clear there and therefore the "?" I just didn't remember all the hql crap, and it is probably not good that these requirements are placed upon us so often and often so vaguely written when our rights are at stake. I believe there is a background check with the MD Collectors license, talk about redundancy but then again ICBWrong. Many question the Constitutionality of a background check at all.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,185
    yeah, I may have not been clear there and therefore the "?" I just didn't remember all the hql crap, and it is probably not good that these requirements are placed upon us so often and often so vaguely written when our rights are at stake. I believe there is a background check with the MD Collectors license, talk about redundancy but then again ICBWrong. Many question the Constitutionality of a background check at all.

    I don’t have issues with the state checking background on potential buyers to determine whether or not they are prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

    I do however have issues with the multiple redundancies in the system. We are to the point where they are doing background checks on background checks. And that part of it is a means to discourage purchasing. Therefore an infringement on the people who want and qualify to purchase but won’t go through the steps to do so.

    The HQL is a pure infringement scheme and it effectively bans purchase for anyone who can’t afford the HQL AND the firearm they wish to purchase. Or it forces the person to get/pay for the HQL... and then be left with only sufficient funds to purchase a substandard and less reliable firearm. Which creates a safety issue for that person and anyone near them.

    The Anti-gunners knew that when they pushed the law through the state senate. I hope and pray that the SCOTUS will hear this issue and set the state down for corrective action.
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    And I’ll ALSO remember how many times I’ve seen posts from certain folks about how “Police should be held to a higher standard”

    Well, the whole power of arrest thing and the ability to act under color of law means (to me, at least) that yes, Police officers should be held to a higher standard than Joe on the street.

    ... and “receive more penalties than the average citizens”.

    I don't know about more penalties, as I think that the penalty for a certain crime ought to be the same no matter who you are, but LEOs are also able to be charged with certain crimes that you can't charge Joe Citizen with, by dint of the powers that come with the office, and I'm fine with that.

    I don’t understand the background check for the HQL.

    It's exactly what RD says below: they're making the process of buying a gun as difficult as possible so less people will do it.

    And that part of it is a means to discourage purchasing. Therefore an infringement on the people who want and qualify to purchase but won’t go through the steps to do so.

    The HQL is a pure infringement scheme and it effectively bans purchase for anyone who can’t afford the HQL AND the firearm they wish to purchase.

    Bingo. Plus, you've gotta have the ability to get yourself to someplace where you can be fingerprinted, pay for that, then submit the paperwork pay for that, etc etc. When voter ID laws are passed that would require even half of the process (and none of the cost) of getting an HQL they're struck down, but somehow this is ok.
     

    YerNotGood

    Active Member
    May 30, 2013
    128
    Baltimore
    Yepper... maybe some folks would be happy to go through months of training BEFORE being allowed to carry a hand gun... and then at least a week of classroom and a re-qualification live fire course of several hundred rounds EVERY year... so they can be a “different class of person”. :sad20:

    They should be careful what they ask for.

    Meh, I don't buy this argument. Plenty of citizens go through far more rigorous background testings and are still required to under go the process.

    Police firearms training is notoriously ineffective so I don't buy that argument either. This is why legitimate firearms training academies dont let LEO and military skip prereq classes.

    For your viewing pleasure (warning: its scary)
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/
     

    1time

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    2,258
    Baltimore, Md
    Meh, I don't buy this argument. Plenty of citizens go through far more rigorous background testings and are still required to under go the process.



    Police firearms training is notoriously ineffective so I don't buy that argument either. This is why legitimate firearms training academies dont let LEO and military skip prereq classes.



    For your viewing pleasure (warning: its scary)

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/



    Not saying you can’t get better training then we get. I’m saying the training we get is far superior to what the HQL training requires.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    Md laws suck . The entire concept of HQL sucks . Various ramifications and visuals of it suck. The politicians who passed it suck .


    But for the most part, isn't the fault of individual rank & file LEOs . I don't begrudge making full use of the ( sucky) laws as written .
     

    omegared24

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 23, 2011
    4,747
    Ijamsville, MD
    I certainly don't have an issue with LEOs having access to "banned assault weapons". I also don't have an issue with the average citizen having access either. It doesn't make sense and is inconsistent with our values in the USA.

    What I do have an issue with is the assumption that LEOs (or military personnel) are trained properly. I've shot with current/former LEOs/Military and have seen some shocking incompetence. When I have Montgomery County police officers telling me that they have limited range time that is alarming. One of those officers believes that the average citizen shouldn't have access to guns...period. He's very much a Tackleberry, talking about his guns and how great they are. It's a shame but he is the exception to the rule. If you're going to limit anyone, it should be the guy that believes he can have guns while the rest of us cannot. His values aren't consistent with what we believe.

    If I was a cop I would take advantage of the laws as much as I could so I certainly don't blame them for buying what they can.
     

    daNattyFatty

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 27, 2009
    3,908
    Bel Air, MD
    LEO using 77R for banned "assault" weapons?

    Meh, I don't buy this argument. Plenty of citizens go through far more rigorous background testings and are still required to under go the process.



    Police firearms training is notoriously ineffective so I don't buy that argument either. This is why legitimate firearms training academies dont let LEO and military skip prereq classes.



    For your viewing pleasure (warning: its scary)

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/



    Very true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of governments or agencies aren’t going to shell out the money needed to go much past basic training and requalifications.

    Just a few of the many factors include:

    1) Taking officers off the road for training requires another officer take their place or simply none at all. Of course the latter is a community service and officer safety problem.

    2) For agencies large enough to have full time trainers, it’s all they can do just to requal the entire department as well as train their recruits. If they want to place a priority on training, then more officers, more and better equipment and facilities are needed. That’s already a bigger fiscal commitment that’s needed before any training even takes place.

    3) For agencies that don’t have full time or any trainers at all, that’s more officers taken from their regular assignment to conduct the training, or the agency farms it out (more money).

    So that leaves the officers seeking training on their own. Obviously, there are a bunch of members here that seek out formal training, but why don’t the majority?

    1) Money for the class, ammo, equipment, travel and/or lodging
    2) work commitments
    3) family commitments

    Don’t mistake, I’m certainly not making excuses. LEOs should place a priority on it, but ultimately, it’s not as easy as just going. Sad, yes. But it’s the way it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    44man

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    10,129
    southern md
    Very true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of governments or agencies aren’t going to shell out the money needed to go much past basic training and requalifications.

    Just a few of the many factors include:

    1) Taking officers off the road for training requires another officer take their place or simply none at all. Of course the latter is a community service and officer safety problem.

    2) For agencies large enough to have full time trainers, it’s all they can do just to requal the entire department as well as train their recruits. If they want to place a priority on training, then more officers, more and better equipment and facilities are needed. That’s already a bigger fiscal commitment that’s needed before any training even takes place.

    3) For agencies that don’t have full time or any trainers at all, that’s more officers taken from their regular assignment to conduct the training, or the agency farms it out (more money).

    So that leaves the officers seeking training on their own. Obviously, there are a bunch of members here that seek out formal training, but why don’t the majority?

    1) Money for the class, ammo, equipment, travel and/or lodging
    2) work commitments
    3) family commitments

    Don’t mistake, I’m certainly not making excuses. LEOs should place a priority on it, but ultimately, it’s not as easy as just going. Sad, yes. But it’s the way it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    My favorite cousin ( and the only cop I trust now) somehow gets stuck bringing the worst shots in his department to the farm to try and help them qualify when they need to

    I have seen small children with better firearms knowledge and abilities and the lack of safety knowledge in the ones he has to bring is scary

    But somehow he gets them to squeak by

    It’s actually scary to watch at first lol

    I assume most of these folks work desk jobs or something but I have never asked

    I just thought cops got better training
     

    1time

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    2,258
    Baltimore, Md
    Very true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of governments or agencies aren’t going to shell out the money needed to go much past basic training and requalifications.

    Just a few of the many factors include:

    1) Taking officers off the road for training requires another officer take their place or simply none at all. Of course the latter is a community service and officer safety problem.

    2) For agencies large enough to have full time trainers, it’s all they can do just to requal the entire department as well as train their recruits. If they want to place a priority on training, then more officers, more and better equipment and facilities are needed. That’s already a bigger fiscal commitment that’s needed before any training even takes place.

    3) For agencies that don’t have full time or any trainers at all, that’s more officers taken from their regular assignment to conduct the training, or the agency farms it out (more money).

    So that leaves the officers seeking training on their own. Obviously, there are a bunch of members here that seek out formal training, but why don’t the majority?

    1) Money for the class, ammo, equipment, travel and/or lodging
    2) work commitments
    3) family commitments

    Don’t mistake, I’m certainly not making excuses. LEOs should place a priority on it, but ultimately, it’s not as easy as just going. Sad, yes. But it’s the way it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



    Most cops don’t seek additional firearms training for the same reason that cab drivers don’t take advanced driving courses. They are not into it and feel like they do well enough.

    Our department sticks with MPTC requirements for quals and tries to focus more time on training other than qual/accuracy training. They do have an allotment of ammo for officers to shoot on their own time. The stick is, the officers that come up shoot well. Some of them were marginal shooters in the academy and worked to get better/ work to stay better. The officers that are shitting blood when they get their range date are never the ones that come and practice. They come up, squeak by, maybe have to go to remedial and when they qual, they are done until the next range date; then it’s time to remove blood from their underwear again.

    Most officers will never fire a round outside of training and they like many sheep believe “it will never happen to me”.

    There is also a lot of ego involved. I work with many “gun guys”. I have dragged several of them to 3gun and USPSA matches. Being guys that do care, they couldn’t take getting whipped by lawyers, landscapers, IT guys and old/over the hill fat guys.

    I grew up with guns and hunting. Never had any formal training and shot okay in the academy but not great. I still shot a lot since graduating the academy and through watching and reading on the internet, became a decent shooter.

    Then I attended my first USPSA match. Holy smokes, I didn’t realize shooting like that was possible. But I guess I’m wired different than coworkers. I left thinking that if fat old guys and pharmacists can shoot like that, so can I. But I am the type that would rather be pushing a 3gun cart in the rain and resetting steel than watching football on Sundays so maybe something is wrong with me.

    You can’t force people to care. Standard are set and as long as they are met, not much can be said. If you raise them too much you will be out of police. We are having a terrible time hiring right now and I work for a pretty solid department.

    With exception, most cops aren’t gun guys and most cab drivers aren’t car guys.
     

    MindTheGAP

    Active Member
    Jan 4, 2018
    574
    Maryland
    I actually heard someone bitching about the fact that LEOs are not required to get a HQL. And the requirements for training and fingerprints is unfair and LEOs should be required to go through the same process as everyone else. So... I invited that person to attend the same number of MONTHS of training... and go through the same WEEKS of background checks and fingerprinting and medical and psychological testing as the LEOs must go through just to get the job. Naturally... they declined.

    I'd just like to point out - once most officers are initially trained, they only requal what, once, maybe twice a year? I assure you, based on the self-reported statistics nation-wide, any officer of the law carrying a firearm has almost certainly practiced less / fired less rounds than the average shooter, including almost anyone on this board.

    The argument can be made that the issue is the existence of the HQL for private citizens in the first place, but it's a non-sequitur to write off the idea police requiring an HQL as ridiculous, because guess what? The HQL does exist, and therefore, police should be bound by the same constraints - unless you're saying that there IS a difference in class between an LEO and private citizen?
     

    1time

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    2,258
    Baltimore, Md
    1st off, the idea that police are worse than the “average shooter” is ridiculous. The average competitive shooter or the average shooter that takes training classes, sure. Most of them are better than most police. But if you have ever been to a shooting range that isn’t in your back yard, you can’t possibly believe that.

    Most shooters have zero training in safety or shooting ability. I am a member of a private range with around 600 members and help with some of their events. I have had a guy that has been a “shooter” for 50 plus years ask me if it was okay to look through the bore on his river mk2 on the line. This was alter he was suspended for sticking his eyeball in the muzzle the year before. Another guy that I will say has been really deep in the gun business for many years and is respected on this forum that wouldn’t keep control of his muzzle and and ended up pointing his gun at people. My 8 year old is safer with a gun than the Average Shooter.

    Police training is a base line, nothing more. The HQL required training is a baseline, far more basic than police training. Again, I don’t agree with the HQL and won’t vote for any idiot that signed it. The fact is, the politicians decided that training was required at a basic level and added the training mandates to the bill. The training mandates by the same state for police exceeds the mandated trading for the HQL training and background check.
     

    Hawkeye

    The Leatherstocking
    Jan 29, 2009
    3,971
    Milpro = Military Profile. (non HBAR)

    I don't mean this in a denigrating manner, but until your first post in this thread, I had never seen that term anywhere, which is why I think a lot of people are confused by it.

    That's probably because the military uses a ton of different barrel profiles depending on the rifle and the role it fills. There isn't one standard "military profile" barrel, and there are also tons of non-HBAR barrel profiles that aren't used by the military.
     

    YerNotGood

    Active Member
    May 30, 2013
    128
    Baltimore
    1st off, the idea that police are worse than the “average shooter” is ridiculous. The average competitive shooter or the average shooter that takes training classes, sure. Most of them are better than most police. But if you have ever been to a shooting range that isn’t in your back yard, you can’t possibly believe that.

    Did you read my link?

    "After finishing academy instruction and practice, new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur."

    The article defines novices as follows:

    • “Novices,” who may have fired a weapon once or twice but for the most part had never held or shot a gun “in their life.”

    Do you understand how terrifying that is?
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,185
    Meh, I don't buy this argument. Plenty of citizens go through far more rigorous background testings and are still required to under go the process.

    Police firearms training is notoriously ineffective so I don't buy that argument either. This is why legitimate firearms training academies dont let LEO and military skip prereq classes.

    For your viewing pleasure (warning: its scary)
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/study-why-police-firearms-training-sucks/

    So do you actually believe that the HQL training requirements are more stringent than the requirements of training for the LEO?

    The “plenty of citizens” you referenced... are they the ones who do the minimum requirements for the HQL?

    Changing the point and saying you don’t buy it... is funny.

    My point was/is...
    The LEO and the Military Member goes through much more training than any person is required to go through to get a HQL. Denying that is laughable. Requiring the LEO or Military Members to go through the additional training to get a HQL would be like requiring a Certified EMT to go get additional training to be able to apply a bandaid. Extremely redundant.
     

    RoadDawg

    Nos nostraque Deo
    Dec 6, 2010
    94,185
    Did you read my link?

    "After finishing academy instruction and practice, new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur."

    The article defines novices as follows:

    • “Novices,” who may have fired a weapon once or twice but for the most part had never held or shot a gun “in their life.”

    Do you understand how terrifying that is?

    Not as terrifying as the civilian who just finished HQL training... fired their one shot... and now thinks they have the training necessary to know what they are doing when they pick up their shiny new firearm.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,056
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom