While I think low capacity mags are asinine and these laws are useless and wrong, I don't see the constitutional argument. In your hypothetical, how would you go about doing your job while still following your idea of Constitutional? Who would you stop fellow officers from enforcing said laws?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Magpul suspending sales to LE in ban-states
- Thread starter Lammchop93
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! 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!
Member Benefits:
While I think low capacity mags are asinine and these laws are useless and wrong, I don't see the constitutional argument. In your hypothetical, how would you go about doing your job while still following your idea of Constitutional? Who would you stop fellow officers from enforcing said laws?
It's a bit of a stretch "shall not be infringed" = number of rounds inside your firearm. There are plenty of better arguments against these laws, this isn't one of them.
Seems like a simple concept to me.
As Denny asked, please explain how you will do this. I work for a department with close to 1600 officers. If I'm now responsible for each and every one of their actions I should at least be informed on how I can control those actions so that nothing bad happens.
By your theory, as a gun owner, you are responsible for Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado and the moron in Florida who shot at the fleeing shoplifter. Do me a favor and stop these things from happening, would you?
You seem to believe that police officers have some mythical power of influence over politicians. Again, I'd appreciate a presentation of evidence showing where politicians give a **** about police officer's opinions on legislation. Police officers can speak up and demand whatever they want. The elected elite pay them no more attention than they do anyone else unless there is a wad of cash in the officer's hand at the time.
What is your agency policy on making political statements in uniform or as a representative of the agency?
Last edited:
Agreed tough decision, however I think they made the right choice!
Interesting point , Phylodog... So if I get you right - you are saying that you yourself wouldn't arrest anyone for an unconstitutional law (mag cap law being the example). But you cannot stop others in your department from doing the same. Unless you are in command, that makes sense. I can buy that. I prefer the statements made by folks like the Utah Sheriffs, but in fairness, they are freely elected and in command. And that's an important distinction.
I don't _totally_ buy your second argument, though. Politicians - especially the corrupt degenerate bunch currently occupying the swamp, seem to listen quite nicely to ANYTHING with the words "Fraternal" or "UNION" attached to them. Case in point - the legislators in NY were quick to poop their pants when they realized that they had not made an exception for police in the mag limit law. The Frate... err unions... do have that "wad of cash" you speak of. And in fairness - it's YOUR cash if you participate in those organizations.
Again, I can see your point in that you cannot stop others. But if you contribute at all to the FOP (or whatever is similar around here) ya might want to check around and make sure that your silver isn't a bit tainted...
The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle...
There's also the point that if a citizen can't buy something - a LEO who's a citizen should not be able to buy it under color of authority. No exceptions. I personally prefer that approach. I can't ask you to do what I can't do - in the sense of stopping other officers outside of your command from enforcing an unconstitutional law. That said, why should you be able to buy something I can't, strictly based on your status as a leo? Can you name one thing that you should have to defend your life, that I should not?
I don't _totally_ buy your second argument, though. Politicians - especially the corrupt degenerate bunch currently occupying the swamp, seem to listen quite nicely to ANYTHING with the words "Fraternal" or "UNION" attached to them. Case in point - the legislators in NY were quick to poop their pants when they realized that they had not made an exception for police in the mag limit law. The Frate... err unions... do have that "wad of cash" you speak of. And in fairness - it's YOUR cash if you participate in those organizations.
Again, I can see your point in that you cannot stop others. But if you contribute at all to the FOP (or whatever is similar around here) ya might want to check around and make sure that your silver isn't a bit tainted...
The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle...
There's also the point that if a citizen can't buy something - a LEO who's a citizen should not be able to buy it under color of authority. No exceptions. I personally prefer that approach. I can't ask you to do what I can't do - in the sense of stopping other officers outside of your command from enforcing an unconstitutional law. That said, why should you be able to buy something I can't, strictly based on your status as a leo? Can you name one thing that you should have to defend your life, that I should not?
Last edited:
I'm not arguing in favor of these insane laws. I don't agree with them on any level. The reason I don't agree with them is that criminals, by definition, will ignore them. It's not that I believe LE should be allowed things that every other citizen isn't, the difference is that other citizens aren't expected to take on the criminals. I posted about this topic in one of the other threads about it. My argument for both (citizens and police) is the same. We should have access to what we want, it is not an us vs them argument from me. The flaw as I see it is in thinking the refusal to sell to police will have the slightest affect on the politicians, it won't. I support the right of a business owner to do business with whoever they choose, including Magpul.
Exactly. Individual officers don't have much say about what goes on at all. We do not control the FOP and whatever other groups that lobby congress. They do what they want. If people in power cared about the opinion of LEOs, there are a lot of aspects of the crim justice system that would change imo.
These companies can do what they want. It's a private business. I still do think that individual officer sales shouldn't be restricted b/c depts like mine will have to utilize that method if the time comes since the dept. won't pay for most/any of that stuff in the first place. But, as I just said, it's their decision to make.
My brother is an officer and I have a vested interest in ensuring he has the best equipment available, I after all don't want my brother to end up dead because he had lackluster equipment. I see both sides of this and the issue is and probably always will be that the police as an organization are the hand that rocks the cradle, but as individuals they are just like you (collective you, not just Phylo) and I. The issue is that by these laws refusing Leo sales COULD dry up the supply of these items but we all know it's really just a symbolic gesture. Nothing short of the company closing down will cause those results in reality. If criminals can get those items why do we believe the police won't be able to? The propensity to commit crime is not restricted to civilians and there are also legal ways for them to obtain them which they are much more likely to do anyway.
So the refusing to sell is symbolic not effectual. The police are the hand of the government. The officer is who we should be protecting and supporting. We all need to step back and remember we live in Indiana and we can still have all of these things so while we may be upset about the current state of affairs, it's important not to knee-jerk react to every nuance of every companies decisions. I think. Much support from me to you Phylo for standing up and being real about all of this even if it is currently just theoretical.
Faine -let's cut the crap. My daughter has a restraining order due to a stalker. Is your brother's life more important than my daughter's?
Hint - the answer is "no". (and her life isn't more important than his, either.) Both are free citizens of this great country. So if a citizen can legally buy something, so can LEO. If not, then not.
No complicated reasoning necessary.
No exceptions necessary.
That's the way the legislators should write the law. But they didn't.
And we are letting them hear about it.
That's the way the companies should take a stand. Some great companies have - but Magpul isn't (well - in a half ass sort of way).
And we are letting them hear about it.
And may God have mercy on the next poor schlub from the FOP that calls my house asking for money. Those of you that contribute money to them need to take a long hard look at your motives and what you are supporting. That money might wind up buying a Potter's field in the future.
Wally - do you give the FOP money? (Don't know if you do or not - honest question) If you do - which Congress-critter was it used to buy off - and towards what end? I'd make sure that I knew that I knew the answer to that question and I could live with it, before I gave them another red cent. In fairness - the same would be true of any organization that I supported.
Wrong, try again! By definition, "shall not be infringed" means that the law shall not be undemined. Reducing a gun to any less than what it was designed for, is an infringement. If that means limiting scopes, sights, grips, slings, bayonets, muzzle devices.......whatever that is an an infringement.
Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I will say that you make a point, however the politicians are the ones these guys report up through and/or the officers have a bit of say in how they enforce the law. That is fundamentally different than ordinary Joes.
I would also argue that many of the politicians (flawed) believe that if someone is attacked or in trouble that the police can be there in minutes to stop them. Yes, they often can be there in minutes, but the damage is already done! If the police do not have the tools they need, they will be less effective. Now have the politicians thought that all the way through? I seriously doubt it. Many of the gun banners either want thy mythical paradise of heaven on earth (in its current state by legislating evil away) or they believe that only the police and military should have guns.
This is a good example ......never trust a police officer on your gun rights and always know your rights ...which are shrinking, in the long run in my opinion large number of officers will follow orders in the name of the Law for very restrictive gun control......they may personally disagree but will do what they are ordered to do for the new law and in the name of the law on the books...
Yes, that could be. But we are not arguing that. Magazine laws are ineffective and useless but it would be hard/impossible to defend on the grounds of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". That's all I'm saying.
This is a good example ......never trust a police officer on your gun rights and always know your rights ...which are shrinking, in the long run in my opinion large number of officers will follow orders in the name of the Law for very restrictive gun control......they may personally disagree but will do what they are ordered to do for the new law and in the name of the law on the books...
Wow...you really CAN see into my brain and in the brain of my brothers/sisters. Bravo...bravo. I never said how I would handle such a law, I was just making points in this academic argument. I guess ASSuming is rather easy. However, I caution officers about "making up" their own laws or enforcement of them. Sure, we have some leeway but when it comes down to it, we end up enforcing laws we don't always agree with. YOUR opinion of a law does not make that law so. I have never enforced an unconstitutional law and I doubt I ever will. However, some might say that the fact that I have locked up a "serious violent felon" for possession of a firearm is in fact unconstitutional. There are quite a few here that have said that ANY person, violent felon included, should have free access to firearms. Should I ignore that law based on their opinion or should I wait for a court ruling? I have arrested persons for carrying without a license. Again, some believe I am enforcing an unconstitutional law based on their opinion of it (NOT on any court ruling). So, WHO'S opinion should I base my enforcement actions on? Our legal system is not perfect but it is by far much better than every officer for himself.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
GodFearinGunTotinSuper Moderator
Members online
- knutty
- glock addict
- williamsburg
- Lifeform50
- Timjoebillybob
- d.kaufman
- paintman
- NHT3
- Ozzy17
- G19G26
- medavis428@
- hammerd13
- quangtran1
- Bugzilla
- Engle086
- cmann250
- Born2vette
- Wolfhound
- 1775usmarine
- fireball168
- ancjr
- littletommy
- wabashman
- tom1025
- 45sRfun
- Mr.Softball
- Amattern
- GodFearinGunTotin
- Grim714
- junglerogue
- Old Dog
- smittygj
- crookcountygo
- Terry A
- indyblue
- bkflyer
- cobber
- chezuki
- deo62
- Dog1
- Paul 7.62
- 257robertsimp
- Jlasiter
- gpasp101
- triggerhappy00
- El Conquistador
- Will0369
- stevezx2
- snowdrifter
- TheSpookyCat