Even LE are now reduced to smaller magazines, CRAZY!!

[dist1646]

Sure, isn't that what Gun Owners Of America and other like organizations do? Are you saying that the citizen of NJ, can't vote out their legislature if the majority desires to do so?

Problem is the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect the rights of the individual, not the whim of the majority. Courts have long upheld this concept. That is why we are still the country that everyone in the world wants to be a part of.

 

[TACAV]

Just throwing my $0.02 cents in here.

Im an LEO in MD.
Im also an LE firearms instructor, NRA life member and as a private citizen, a big gun owner including NFA stuff.

I think magazine/gun and gun accessoriy bans/restrictions are stupid and pointless.... for EVERYONE concerning the law abiding general public.

And i would just add that i know many other troopers, deputies and officers who share my thoughts on the matter. And further more i know more adamantly pro gun cops than i know adamantly anti gun cops.

So just saying my two cents. Any polititican that would restrict the freedoms of the law abiding citizens while at the same time empowering criminals is trash in our book.

Thank you, merry christmas and now back to your regular scheduled forum banter.

 

[TexDefender]

Problem is the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect the rights of the individual, not the whim of the majority. Courts have long upheld this concept. That is why we are still the country that everyone in the world wants to be a part of.

I understand that but it isn't absolute or we as a group wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't like it either.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[RepublicOfFranklin]

NJ police union sold their citizens and their oaths down the river. They were only momentarily concerned when they thought their true owners had turned on them.

2A isn’t negotiable and is written in clear language. I know a lot of LEO’s are pro 2A but standing beside grabbers in unions, legislature, and city police chiefs cheering on Bloomberg isn’t going to win any points. Enforcing an unconstitutional law for pay doesn’t make it any different than supporting the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eric114]

Police should not be equipped or armed with anything restricted from the citizenry they are sworn to protect and serve

 

[SCV/SAR Patriot]

Police should not be equipped or armed with anything restricted from the citizenry they are sworn to protect and serve

 

[j&ksmall]

NJ

I’ve never understood the NE US when it comes to 2A. I do believe there are lessons in what’s going on in NJ for all of us. Learn the lessons and don’t clobber each other as you do it. Creeping incrementalism is the absolute order of the day in terms os anything political. Virtually nobody in politics, left or right, has the guts to actually say what they’re about about and push openly for the policy they ultimately desire. We don’t allow politicians to be that honest any more and they’ve never really wowed us with that kind of intestinal fortitude anyway, at least not in the last 5 or 6 decades or so. 2A people are correct in challenging these incremental, and local, erosions of this right. Elections have consequences and politicians respond to one thing - money.

 

[basscat]

Just throwing my $0.02 cents in here.

Im an LEO in MD.
Im also an LE firearms instructor, NRA life member and as a private citizen, a big gun owner including NFA stuff.

I think magazine/gun and gun accessoriy bans/restrictions are stupid and pointless.... for EVERYONE concerning the law abiding general public.

And i would just add that i know many other troopers, deputies and officers who share my thoughts on the matter. And further more i know more adamantly pro gun cops than i know adamantly anti gun cops.

So just saying my two cents. Any polititican that would restrict the freedoms of the law abiding citizens while at the same time empowering criminals is trash in our book.

Thank you, merry christmas and now back to your regular scheduled forum banter.

If this is the case, and I'm not doubting you, then why doesn't the police union and the rank & file step and say to the lawmakers: We don't want any exemptions.

 

[randomuser]

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[East2West]

Just throwing my $0.02 cents in here.

Im an LEO in MD.
Im also an LE firearms instructor, NRA life member and as a private citizen, a big gun owner including NFA stuff.

I think magazine/gun and gun accessoriy bans/restrictions are stupid and pointless.... for EVERYONE concerning the law abiding general public.

And i would just add that i know many other troopers, deputies and officers who share my thoughts on the matter. And further more i know more adamantly pro gun cops than i know adamantly anti gun cops.

So just saying my two cents. Any polititican that would restrict the freedoms of the law abiding citizens while at the same time empowering criminals is trash in our book.

Thank you, merry christmas and now back to your regular scheduled forum banter.

I believe that a majority of cops are Pro-2A when it comes to their political beliefs.

But, how many officers that you know, who are Pro-2A would refuse an order you felt was unconstitutional or wrong? Would their personally held beliefs on gun rights get in the way of what you were told to do?

 

[lemmdus]

Police should not be equipped or armed with anything restricted from the citizenry they are sworn to protect and serve

When the police are equipped or armed with anything that is restricted from the citizenry we start to slide down a slippery slope. I support our police, I have family that are police, however it can eventually cause a danger of a police state. How many police would stand up and say they took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and we will not enforce laws that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution? You know this is going to find its way into MD. Are the police going to start arresting people for having mags over 10rds or are they simply going to ignore it? Standard capacity for many firearms is 15, 17, 30 rounds. Under Heller, these magazines are in common use, thus the law is, at the moment, unConstitutional.

 

[lemmdus]

Fun fact - If the 2nd Amendment was treated like the other amendments, we would be able to have missile silos on our property.

 

[Allen65]

Fun fact - If the 2nd Amendment was treated like the other amendments, we would be able to have missile silos on our property.

Kinda hard to argue that those are "bearable" by an individual. That would need quite a sling.

 

[ironpony]

Do police pay into a Union?

Wasn't there just a SCOTUS decision on Union dues when the union leans one way politically? Given what I have read here if one is paying dues to this type of union (anti 2A sentiments) then they are anti 2A. Is this basic logic?

 

[TexDefender]

Do police pay into a Union?

Wasn't there just a SCOTUS decision on Union dues when the union leans one way politically? Given what I have read here if one is paying dues to this type of union (anti 2A sentiments) then they are anti 2A. Is this basic logic?

No.

 

[East2West]

Do police pay into a Union?

Wasn't there just a SCOTUS decision on Union dues when the union leans one way politically? Given what I have read here if one is paying dues to this type of union (anti 2A sentiments) then they are anti 2A. Is this basic logic?

While the court ruled, and I agree that because unions are inherently political any dues can be considered political funding. There's a difference between your dues and the PAC Fund. The latter is explicitly for politickin.

To get out of the union in order to express your disdain for the political moves of your local or national group, you have to feel the benefits being a dues paying member are less important than your principles.

One individual pulling out if the union wouldn't change a thing. But, if a large number of members were to threaten to leave or actually leave it would change things. Again, it would take serious conviction in your 2A principles.

 

[spoon059]

But, how many officers that you know, who are Pro-2A would refuse an order you felt was unconstitutional or wrong? Would their personally held beliefs on gun rights get in the way of what you were told to do?

Let's not forget how many people still think the 14th amendment is illegal. Does that mean that they can still own slaves...? They are "refusing an order they believe unconstitutional"...

Police aren't allowed to disobey properly enacted laws, simply because they don't agree with them. Until you wrap your head around that, there is little use having a discussion with you.

Laws are passed by liberal politicians. They are reviewed by liberal attorneys general. They are the law of the land, whether or not you or I agree. The laws aren't for police to pick and choose and interpret. If its unconstitutional, someone needs to fight it to the Supreme Court.

Like it or not, I'm not going to violate the law for you. I'm sorry if you are deeply offended by that, but you're gonna have to deal with the laws being enforced until such time they are deemed unconstitutional.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[ed bernay]

Let's not forget how many people still think the 14th amendment is illegal. Does that mean that they can still own slaves...? They are "refusing an order they believe unconstitutional"...

Police aren't allowed to disobey properly enacted laws, simply because they don't agree with them. Until you wrap your head around that, there is little use having a discussion with you.

Laws are passed by liberal politicians. They are reviewed by liberal attorneys general. They are the law of the land, whether or not you or I agree. The laws aren't for police to pick and choose and interpret. If its unconstitutional, someone needs to fight it to the Supreme Court.

Like it or not, I'm not going to violate the law for you. I'm sorry if you are deeply offended by that, but you're gonna have to deal with the laws being enforced until such time they are deemed unconstitutional.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I have had this debate with cops before. I understand that many cops are pro 2nd amendment and don't want to lose their pension. However the police in NJ, NY, CT, CA, IL, MD etc. are choosing money over the rights of your fellow citizens. No one is forcing you to be a police officer in any of the anti 2nd amendment states. You don't want to quit your job and lose your benefits because you have families. You are making a choice.

The politicians could never pass these laws if the police unions didn't support it. If the membership was vocal with union leadership over it, then that would put pressure on the politicians to not pass it. How could they put pressure on them not to pass it? By telling the politicians that the union will not support their election campaigns. What do the politicians do? They give excellent benefits and pensions to the police at taxpayers expense and cops don't want that gravy train to stop. I don't doubt that there are many officers that are passionately pro 2nd amendment for everyone and donate time and money to pro 2A causes. However the fact of the matter is that as long as they get their exemptions the police union and police officers for the most part don't care and nothing will change. The courts need to step in now.

Now your response will be that cops have a dangerous job and you deserve those pensions. Well a police officer doesn't even crack the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US though I would say its a career that probably deals with the dregs of society more often than other careers with maybe probation officers, prison guards being worse. I was in the police academy for an extremely short time and resigned. I recognized almost immediately that it was not an environment that was suited for me. We can debate this all day. If a police officer arrests someone for nothing other than violating a BS gun control law, they are making a choice of their career over the rights of citizens.

http://time.com/5074471/most-dangerous-jobs/

 

[randomuser]

law or no law, the moral compass always points you in the right direction.

The golden rule always applies in life

(only the spineless would follow or enforce a law that is morally corrupt)

Slavery was once legal and it was never moral, but the government said it was legal

Alcohol was once illegal and it was not immoral....it was legal, then illegal, then legal, makes you wonder how you can go back and forth

Marijuana is illegal and I can't think a moral argument against it (no, I don't partake myself)

Now you can carry 10 rounds in a magazine in your home and be "law abiding", but your a felon if you have a 15 round mag in your possession. What a joke. And to think there are people who think they have the god given right to take someones freedom because they disagree with the amount of rounds you can put into a magazine.

laws are not always based on morality or common sense. You have to follow your own moral compass

the way the world works>>>>>It always seems that the side with the most guns gets to make the rules because of the ability to enforce the law if necessary and it appears that the government is just making it more and more weighted on their side all the time.

The more silly rules that politicians make the less likely people are to follow them. How is that compliance thing working out in NY, NJ, CT, CA??????

This kind of sums it up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU
someday the ants will realize.

 

[East2West]

Let's not forget how many people still think the 14th amendment is illegal. Does that mean that they can still own slaves...? They are "refusing an order they believe unconstitutional"...

Police aren't allowed to disobey properly enacted laws, simply because they don't agree with them. Until you wrap your head around that, there is little use having a discussion with you.

Laws are passed by liberal politicians. They are reviewed by liberal attorneys general. They are the law of the land, whether or not you or I agree. The laws aren't for police to pick and choose and interpret. If its unconstitutional, someone needs to fight it to the Supreme Court.

Like it or not, I'm not going to violate the law for you. I'm sorry if you are deeply offended by that, but you're gonna have to deal with the laws being enforced until such time they are deemed unconstitutional.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

**LOL people hate the 14th Amendment??**

Thank you for your honesty.

That is the point I've been trying to prove here all along. The LEOs will enforce the law until they are told not to, no matter how egregious they may seem to us non-LEOs.

Fox, henhouse.