Delegate Dwyer to propose bill that prohibits LE from using "banned" firearms

Granted, I heard this from a friend, but...

2 of his friends are officers; one from AA and one in Baltimore Co.
Both said that we are sovereign citizens and would have no problem confiscating arms if asked to.

My friend is in his mid 20's, and I know one of the officers is the same.
Needless to say, this friend has had a falling out with both.

mrb2217 said:

Not much thought for the police officer who has to risk his life against a criminal who will not follow laws and use any weapon they choose. Don't put officer's lives a risk just to make a statement. This is bill is just as stupid as the ones trying to restrict gun ownership.

Click to expand...

It's for the puppies.

What pisses me off about this entire bill is that Del. Dwyer is doing the same thing as our wonderful president is doing. He's trying to make people look at the police as enemies against the 2A. If you ever stopped scowling and cussing an officer under your breath and took the time to actually talk to him about 2A rights i'd be willing to bet you would be surprised with their outlook on it.

Redviper, A police officers life is not more important then anybody else's and I'm sorry you read it that way. As the bill pertains to only police officers that is what we were discussing. I have put my life on the line countless times for the well being of the citizens of this country and state and will continue to do so as i believe strongly in the term "service before self". I do not need to be educated by you on the importance of life as I have had close friends killed trying to protect the lives of citizens in this state. Sorry if you read it otherwise as that was not the intention.

Seriously? Folks are arguing whether police need the same weapons that civilians are banned from owning? Might I suggest we all send a few emails or leave a few voicemails tonight instead of arguing about a hypothetical situation that we CAN PREVENT!

mrb2217 said:

Not much thought for the police officer who has to risk his life against a criminal who will not follow laws and use any weapon they choose. Don't put officer's lives a risk just to make a statement. This is bill is just as stupid as the ones trying to restrict gun ownership.

Click to expand...

No it's not. Why should police have any better chance against a criminal than any other citizen? The 2nd Amendment's intention was to keep the people as well-armed as the State.

mrb2217 said:

Redviper, A police officers life is not more important then anybody else's and I'm sorry you read it that way. As the bill pertains to only police officers that is what we were discussing. I have put my life on the line countless times for the well being of the citizens of this country and state and will continue to do so as i believe strongly in the term "service before self". I do not need to be educated by you on the importance of life as I have had close friends killed trying to protect the lives of citizens in this state. Sorry if you read it otherwise as that was not the intention.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the thoughful response (as opposed to some others) - that's exactly how I read your original post. This is a firery issue because the vast majority of the gun grabbing legislation (that most universally agree will have no bearing on crime rates) has been proposed by those that surround themselves with heavily armed guards (because they're so important that their lives need to be protected over the lives of others).

Like taxes, I think all of these bills should apply to every person without any exemptions. In order to have a real representaitve government, every person needs to have skin in the game.

P.S. - Thank you for your service.

Trbo6gn said:

Tin Foil hat????? How many times have you went into a house to apprehend a violent individual wanted for murder who has no regards for any human life. Do you risk your life to get these pieces of shit off the street? NO. You sit on the computer and bitch and moan about how the police (Most of whom agree 100% with our rights to bear arms) are plotting to come take away your prized squirrel hunting rifle. Really man wake up and realize how ridiculous you sound.

Click to expand...

Question, "LEO"...what's the "E" stand for? Who exactly do you think is going to enforce unconstitutional laws if passed? Here's another way of saying it... CURRENTLY if you walk down the street with a holstered gun on your hip, are police going to marvel at your excellent use of your right to keep and bear arms, or are they going to arrest you for carrying without a permit? The plain fact is that police are the enforcement arm of the law, and currently the laws are changing to infringe on many more liberties. It's just the way it is.

The constitution was crafted with checks and balances in it. There are the normal checks people think of(legislative, judicial, executive)...but there's also the ultimate check of the people's power against the govt. By disarming the people and not equally disarming the enforcement arm of the government, the balance of power shifts away from the people.

This has nothing to do with a desire to disarm the police and everything to do with the desire to prevent further 2A infringement against the people. This forces anyone in opposition to this bill to cite reasons WHY police would need these tools. Any argument they present has equal application to the need of law-abiding citizens for these tools of defense. If politicians wish to continue to push gun infringement without opposing this bill, it forces them to disarm LEO's...which is pretty damned unlikely to be a popular sentiment.

K31 said:

They are going to be required to sport Frosh porn-staches?

Click to expand...

I thought he was going for the Ned Flanders look.

Agreed it is a tough and fiery issue and a lot of police officers are being put in a bad position all around. Trust me when I say that seeing some of our higher ups in our departments advocate for strict gun control "on behalf of all of the officers of______ Police Department" and using our safety as an excuse and bargaining chips infuriates a lot of us. It's a catch 22 because speaking out publicly on the issue against our departments wishes can cost us our livelihood. I'm a big believer in shall issue and the second amendments as it is intended. i know what Dwyer is trying to do but this bill has unintended consequences and these liberals in Annapolis just might pass it to take even more gun rights away.

Yeah, good idea. It won't go anywhere, of course, but it should cause some embarrassment.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

smokey0118 said:

Question, "LEO"...what's the "E" stand for? Who exactly do you think is going to enforce unconstitutional laws if passed? Here's another way of saying it... CURRENTLY if you walk down the street with a holstered gun on your hip, are police going to marvel at your excellent use of your right to keep and bear arms, or are they going to arrest you for carrying without a permit? The plain fact is that police are the enforcement arm of the law, and currently the laws are changing to infringe on many more liberties. It's just the way it is.

The constitution was crafted with checks and balances in it. There are the normal checks people think of(legislative, judicial, executive)...but there's also the ultimate check of the people's power against the govt. By disarming the people and not equally disarming the enforcement arm of the government, the balance of power shifts away from the people.

This has nothing to do with a desire to disarm the police and everything to do with the desire to prevent further 2A infringement against the people. This forces anyone in opposition to this bill to cite reasons WHY police would need these tools. Any argument they present has equal application to the need of law-abiding citizens for these tools of defense. If politicians wish to continue to push gun infringement without opposing this bill, it forces them to disarm LEO's...which is pretty damned unlikely to be a popular sentiment.

Click to expand...

Smokey's point above is spot on but to juxtapose the question:

Why should I suffer a handicap in a self-defense situation when the police, military, politicians, and criminals do not? Does it matter that I am not called upon daily to capture criminals? When threatened, is equal means of self-defense unimportant in that instance as in all other instances? Is my life only worth 7 rounds but a police officers is worth 30? How many murderers do the police seek to round-up in one raid? I would think that 7 police officers with 7 rounds each would provide more than sufficient firepower to capture any sort of suspect.

All of the statements of agreement with the pro-2A crowd are worthless when, if the law is passed, the police officer is called upon to enforce that law and does nothing but follow orders. I agree that the police should suffer the same restrictions that the general public must suffer. Otherwise, the system creates a separate caste of "citizens" whose safety and security are more valued than the others. To a degree, we already see that in concealed carry laws.

mpdc4511 said:

Ok let me settle this so you tards can go argue in another thread.

The rank and file and genuinely opposed to any constrictions on 2A.
No police is saying your life is worth less than ours.
I'm not okay with having reduced round capacity at work.
I'm not okay with having reduced capacity at home.
I'm not okay with you have reduced capacity at home (well some of you idiots shouldn't even own rocks)
The FOP has come out against anti 2A measures.
And some of you have a thought process that not only makes me question your ability to adhere to proper firearms safety but also to rational thought processes.

WE AS POLICE UNDERSTAND THE BILL. WE UNDERSTAND IT JUST AS STUPID AS ANY BILL THAT PERTAINS TO GENERL PUBLIC REGULATIONS. WE ALSO THANK YOU FOR BEING IDIOTS AND TRYING TO PIT YOU AGANIST US OR VICE VERSA FURTHER. No Chief of police COMPLETLY represents the rank and file. Most of them got there by holding pockets.

Signed,

Mr. Common sense

Click to expand...

As many on this board know, including some posters here, I am not a cop basher or hater. I do, however, believe police are a necessary EVIL. That is, in order for us to have a well-regulated society, someone needs to enforce the laws enacted by our legislature BUT blindness in the pursuit of that end leads only to tyranny and oppression. Police officers and soldiers across the ages have justified their actions in support of tyranny with the line of: "It's the law," or "I was just following orders," or "I didn't know..." At some point, the Law becomes tyranny and the police become enforcers of that tyranny. I hope that the members here who are members of the police dept that vociferously decry the encroachments upon the 2A are bold enough to quit their jobs and take a stand when they receive the order to enforce a law that clearly violates the natural rights of man and the limitations on government in the State and Federal Constitutions.

smokey0118 said:

The question doesn't need to be asked. As a law ENFORCEMENT officer, your job is to enforce the law. If the law changes, you and the other LEO's will be placed in the position of having to do your jobs. Essentially politicians would force good men to go to war with other good men. Again, it's just the way it is. It's understood the rank and file are generally pro-gun folks. I also understand I will be arrested if caught walking around with my m&p45 on my hip where I'm not legally allowed to bear it in md.

Of course, these arguments are aside from the real point of this proposal...again, to force the politicians proposing 2A infringement to justify why police need these tools, but citizens don't. What are they going to give as a reason for a LEO to have more than 10 rounds in their magazine, but not an everyday citizen? That's what this proposal forces....the people vs. the po-po is just more of a distraction from the main point of all this.

Click to expand...

Holy crap did someone just make sense? Your 2nd paragraph is right on the money with the OP and I applaud you 10 internets for rationality and intelligence.

While I may sound like a total douche I actually mean that. Thank you for turning this back on topic and engaging in rational thought/debate.

mrb2217 said:

Agreed it is a tough and fiery issue and a lot of police officers are being put in a bad position all around. Trust me when I say that seeing some of our higher ups in our departments advocate for strict gun control "on behalf of all of the officers of______ Police Department" and using our safety as an excuse and bargaining chips infuriates a lot of us. It's a catch 22 because speaking out publicly on the issue against our departments wishes can cost us our livelihood. I'm a big believer in shall issue and the second amendments as it is intended. i know what Dwyer is trying to do but this bill has unintended consequences and these liberals in Annapolis just might pass it to take even more gun rights away.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I will be very surprised if this gets passed. Why would the Dems want to weaken the people who are supposed to be enforcing their (I bite my tongue as I say this) newly passed legislation?

I understand your side of this; I understand why this would hurt the police. But on the other side of the coin, don't we have a right as private citizens to be as well armed as the police? Best case scenario is that this bill opens up dialogue and gets people thinking (wishful thinking, I'm sure) and then it doesn't matter if it passes or not b/c there won't be any gun grabbing in MD.

In a perfect world, I think that every state should have a law like this on the books, just to remind all the politicians where their power really comes from.

mpdc4511 said:

Holy crap did someone just make sense? Your 2nd paragraph is right on the money with the OP and I applaud you 10 internets for rationality and intelligence.

While I may sound like a total douche I actually mean that. Thank you for turning this back on topic and engaging in rational thought/debate.

Click to expand...

haha thanks I think. I understand how the higher-ups in a profession may misrepresent the interests of their subordinates. The MSEA testified in support of more gun infringement on the 6th. My head about exploded off my shoulders in rage.

beafly.cakes said:

10 rounds is enough.

Should probably limit battering rams to 15lbs to protect the children as well.

Click to expand...

Wonderful thought, seems legit to me.

smokey0118 said:

haha thanks I think. I understand how the higher-ups in a profession may misrepresent the interests of their subordinates. The MSEA testified in support of more gun infringement on the 6th. My head about exploded off my shoulders in rage.

Click to expand...

Boss, as cops we understand that criminals get guns via any means. No point in punishing law abiding guys.

I know that my area is way more restrictive when it comes to guns but out of the hundreds of guns I've take off the streets, only one was registered and legally purchased by the person who had it. That was off a 35 yr old woman that shot at her girlfriend and before we even knew the crime occurred she turned herself and the gun over and confessed.

Even if this passes, it will have no effect. I can think of several ways they can effectively ban the mags and guns without fully banning them, thus keeping things in LE hands.

Law needs stronger language, if it is going to have teeth. Allow only things that are readily available and need no special hoops.

ReticulateLemur said:

...don't we have a right as private citizens to be as well armed as the police?

Click to expand...

No, because we are part of the militia we need arms suitable for military service. So if not M16/M4s, then certainly AR-15s with 30-round standard magazines.

I am glad Dwyer is introducing this and will be writing reps in order to support it. And since firearms are now not considered defensive weapons LEO should have to prove they have a "good and substantial reason" like the rest of us.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2