Boston PD to get 200 AR's for the street cop

[Jaxon]

I'm out of this thread. Knee-jerk, cop-bashing, "assault rifles are OK for me but bad for cops" lunacy. Gets my blood pressure high.

Not sure where your head is, but I haven't seen any such comments. Different points of view, but that's what we do here.

 

[Kid Presentable]

the comments on Boston.com are pretty good

 

[depicts]

I have one. I think the Police should have them. I think any honest, non-violent citizen should have one.

 

[wolf223]

I have one. I think the Police should have them. I think any honest, non-violent citizen should have one.

+1 for you...

 

[wolf223]

the comments on Boston.com are pretty good

Heaven is where the cooks are French, the police are English, and the auto mechanics are German.

Hell is where the police are German, the cooks are English, and the auto mechanics are French.

 

[vellnueve]

I think they're getting AR's and the media is calling them M16's

I don't think so. They're most likely getting old M16A1s like so many other departments.

 

[drumenigma]

Instead of AR's why don't they load up on AK's? The cost will be a lot lower and instead of 40 hours of training it can be cut down to about 5 minutes.

 

[TomH]

I think all gun owners are asking for is equal rights. Why should the police have special rights for their defense when we do not? I'm all for the police having the equipment to equal the threat out there. I'm also just as much for ORDINARY CITIZENS having that same ability!

 

[Gonzo]

Instead of AR's why don't they load up on AK's? The cost will be a lot lower and instead of 40 hours of training it can be cut down to about 5 minutes.

Because anyone with an AK-47 is a "bad guy", and either an extra in a James Bond film or one of those guys that runs around the jungles in pajamas and funny hats.

 

[Dench]

i dont think this is a issue at all.

if what happened in Mumbai happened in Boston, everyone here knows damn right that we would all be ridiculously outraged if our police department lacked the means to immediately stop someone with something as simple as a AR15.

the cops arent carrying these rifles on normal foot patrols,
& cops arent rolling around in M113's with a machine gun on top yet.

 

[Gonzo]

that and the fact that if you aren't some short, stocky peasant from the Urals, the upper receiver hits you in the eye socket when you try to drop a shoplifter at more than 50 yards.

I tried to shoulder a dragonuv the other day. My cheek weld was on the receiver.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Instead of AR's why don't they load up on AK's? The cost will be a lot lower and instead of 40 hours of training it can be cut down to about 5 minutes.

That's commie talk.

 

[Bob P]

Instead of AR's why don't they load up on AK's? The cost will be a lot lower and instead of 40 hours of training it can be cut down to about 5 minutes.

Buy American damnit!

 

[weekendracer]

Doesn't sound like that will help in an emergency situation.

Um, get call for some kind of armed situation. Pop the lock on the M4 while responding. Get to scene, take M4 out of vehicle. Take care of bad guy. Spend next 6 months on admin duty.

And the union guy who had problems with AR15's should get kicked in the balls. No way a union rep should be arguing against better equipment for officers.

 

[vellnueve]

Buy American damnit!

Yep, and those A1s are Colts, not FNs

 

[livefreeorhere]

I'm for it - EBRs aren't scary to me. Cops aren't scary to me, and the combination doesn't make me feel the fear. There are four things that scare me:

1. folding stocks
2. bayonet lugs
3. Carnies
4. flash suppressors

 

[Knob Creek]

See Menino was right. More guns are being brought in from out of state!

 

[GSG]

I'm surprised they don't have to make a request in writing to have the "special gun car" be driven to a bank shootout! Wait... maybe they do??

That's how it is in the uber safe U.K.

Why would the Boston Police Department want their officers to "spray-fire" "from the hip" into crowds of civilians, killing as many of them as they can in the shortest amount of time possible?

That is the only thing these weapons can be used for, right?

+1

Even the Fitchburg State campus cops have Colt ARs in the trunk. Not that they know how to use them though. They had to bring them to the ROTC kids to show them how to take them apart and clean them.

Not that I've heard of.

Won't they be obligated to keep the rifles stowed away, unloaded in the trunks per MGL?

No.

MGL 140-131C:

Chapter 140: Section 131C. Carrying of firearms in a vehicle


Section 131C. (a) No person carrying a loaded firearm under a Class A license issued under section 131 or 131F shall carry the same in a vehicle unless such firearm while carried therein is under the direct control of such person. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500.

(b) No person carrying a firearm under a Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500.

(c) No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a Class A or Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any officer, agent or employee of the commonwealth or any state or the United States; (ii) any member of the military or other service of any state or of the United States; (iii) any duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or employee of any municipality of the commonwealth; provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.
(e) A conviction of a violation of this section shall be reported forthwith by the court or magistrate to the licensing authority who shall immediately revoke the card or license of the person so convicted. No new such card or license may be issued to any such person until one year after the date of revocation.

And if they just reached into the trunk, on the ceiling, in the car it would be there. Again, policy.

So should all firearms have to bee carried concealed by LTC holders because some people feel like they're walking a gauntlet?

I agree with you that we shouldn't have the military walking our streets, but that seems like a petty distinction to make.

 

[GSG]

But one interesting note, in MA we can't carry locked and loaded rifles.

A lot of police departments can't either, and make their officers use things like this:

 

[terraformer]

So should all firearms have to bee carried concealed by LTC holders because some people feel like they're walking a gauntlet?

I agree with you that we shouldn't have the military walking our streets, but that seems like a petty distinction to make.

No, all firearms should not have to be concealed. Nor do I have an issues with people in general having rifles. My statement was somewhat figurative as proxy for a much larger issue. My true issue is that we have, as a nation, voluntarily ceded authority to the government for the purpose of keeping the general peace. That authority comes in the form of a uniform. In fact, a lot of case law revolves around the presence of that authority when it comes to the 4th amendment. A cop says you can not leave, we are obliged to acquiesce to that authority. A plain clothes person with no conferred authority say we are not free to leave, we can tell them where to shove it.

Now a sidearm is by it's nature and history predominately a defensive weapon. It can be used offensively but generally is a last ditch weapon in most military situations. Even then, the authoritative position of an officer who reaches for his firearm is enhanced by that action. It is at the ready always but not in play if you will until (s)he reaches. A M4 or AR at the ready is already in their hands or so close by virtue of a single/dual point sling there is no longer a distinction.

Like I have said multiple times, I don't care they have ARs when needed. But their presence in regular use for run of the mill engagements with the public, especially the role they seem to be playing in the security theater around public transit, takes that voluntarily offered authority and removes most, if not all of the voluntariness of it.

What makes America great is that even when we transfer authority to others for the greater good, we always have the knowledge/belief that we are ultimately in control (through voting, rule of law, etc). The militarizing of our domestic security removes that. In my opinion at least.

I hope that came across right. Like I said, it is not a simple thing I was trying to convey.

 

[Mikey]

I think all gun owners are asking for is equal rights. Why should the police have special rights for their defense when we do not? I'm all for the police having the equipment to equal the threat out there. I'm also just as much for ORDINARY CITIZENS having that same ability!

+1 There is nothing wrong with the police having AR-15s as long as the citizens have the same firepower available to them, of course for you people living in Boston...well your way behind in the liberty category.

 

[terraformer]

A lot of police departments can't either, and make their officers use things like this:

That's what they use in Israel for citizens. Odd because in MA at least, the PDs are absolved from the limits on storage. The utility of such as system really goes down if the rifle is mounted in the type of mount Timber sells.

 

[DickWanner]

Not that I've heard of.

Didn't happen exactly like that, but when my Seargent had one of the guys on duty bring it into the classroom to show us he barely knew how to use it let alone field strip it. This is supposedly after they've all spent 3 sessions training with a certified instructor

 

[GSG]

No, all firearms should not have to be concealed. Nor do I have an issues with people in general having rifles. My statement was somewhat figurative as proxy for a much larger issue. My true issue is that we have, as a nation, voluntarily ceded authority to the government for the purpose of keeping the general peace. That authority comes in the form of a uniform. In fact, a lot of case law revolves around the presence of that authority when it comes to the 4th amendment. A cop says you can not leave, we are obliged to acquiesce to that authority. A plain clothes person with no conferred authority say we are not free to leave, we can tell them where to shove it.

Now a sidearm is by it's nature and history predominately a defensive weapon. It can be used offensively but generally is a last ditch weapon in most military situations. Even then, the authoritative position of an officer who reaches for his firearm is enhanced by that action. It is at the ready always but not in play if you will until (s)he reaches. A M4 or AR at the ready is already in their hands or so close by virtue of a single/dual point sling there is no longer a distinction.

Like I have said multiple times, I don't care they have ARs when needed. But their presence in regular use for run of the mill engagements with the public, especially the role they seem to be playing in the security theater around public transit, takes that voluntarily offered authority and removes most, if not all of the voluntariness of it.

What makes America great is that even when we transfer authority to others for the greater good, we always have the knowledge/belief that we are ultimately in control (through voting, rule of law, etc). The militarizing of our domestic security removes that. In my opinion at least.

I hope that came across right. Like I said, it is not a simple thing I was trying to convey.

That makes more sense when you lay it out like that. I agree with you.

Didn't happen exactly like that, but when my Seargent had one of the guys on duty bring it into the classroom to show us he barely knew how to use it let alone field strip it. This is supposedly after they've all spent 3 sessions training with a certified instructor

Not the one's I know...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Oops, Bopo 'jumps the gun'

It looks like the Mayor isn't so eager to sign onto the plan.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...jects_plan_to_arm_patrol_officers_with_m_16s/

 

[vellnueve]

Now I'm really, really, really in support of this idea.

 

[depicts]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...jects_plan_to_arm_patrol_officers_with_m_16s/

What a freakin' idiot!

Facing sharp criticism, Mayor Thomas M. Menino said yesterday that he will not approve a Boston Police Department plan to arm neighborhood officers with semiautomatic rifles, although he expressed some support for their use by specialized units.

Discuss
COMMENTS (36)
The police have obtained 200 M-16s free of charge from the US military and made plans to train dozens of officers and arm them with the rifles. A Globe story yesterday said police officials told union leaders months ago and again in recent weeks that they planned to issue the weapons to precinct patrol officers, as well as specialized units such as the bomb squad and harbor patrol.

But Menino expressed deep reservations yesterday about the plans. He said he had not been briefed on the proposal until a few days ago, and in comments to reporters he was clearly unhappy about the idea of officers patrolling the city's neighborhoods with high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons.

"It hasn't been implemented at all," the mayor said outside a Roslindale elementary school. "There are conversations. This is equipment that's been given to us by the federal government. Other cities have done it. But we haven't made any decision. I would not want them on regular patrols."

Menino said the guns would be more appropriate for officers in elite units. "Maybe on specialized units, at special times, yes," he said.

While special units and patrol officers in other cities such as Chicago, Miami, and Denver use semiautomatic weapons, Boston's plans ignited a backlash.

Community leaders decried the lack of public notice and questioned the reasoning behind arming district officers with M-16s when the city's SWAT team - which responds to standoffs, hostage situations, and other major situations with the potential for violence - already has such weapons. They said the plans seemed to fly in the face of Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis's bid to revitalize community policing, which focuses on reducing crime by fostering trust between officers and residents.

"It seems like people wanted to get their free toys, and now they have to make up rhyme and reason for what to do with them," said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project RIGHT, which runs violence prevention programs in Roxbury. "They come up with these ridiculous ideas. What's wrong with this commissioner? This guy is supposed to be a national leader in community policing."

While saying he has made no final decision, Davis defended the need for the guns in an interview yesterday and said he was not contemplating placing anything near 200 new M-16s on the streets.

More to whole story. Click on link

 

[Dmac82]

This is why I practice my Second Amendment right. Shit like this scares me, I do not see the need for 200 more police officers to be armed readily with black rifles. I understand one here or there, and the need for special enforcement like SWAT. I feel that statistically these rifles both increase the Saftey AND Danger on the streets. We get more guns, so will those looking to do harm.

 

[Mike-Mike]

We get more guns, so will those looking to do harm.

Please explain this

 

[Palladin]

This is why I practice my Second Amendment right. Shit like this scares me, I do not see the need for 200 more police officers to be armed readily with black rifles. I understand one here or there, and the need for special enforcement like SWAT. I feel that statistically these rifles both increase the Saftey AND Danger on the streets. We get more guns, so will those looking to do harm.

really????
statistically, you're talking about less than 10% of the BPD force with one of these rifles; locked in a cruiser. They won't be carrying them on bike or foot patrol. By the time a SWAT unit gets to the scene 2hrs has gone by.

Do you want to drive up on a liquor store robbery in progress, the BG's have a couple of shotguns, a handgun and , lets say a 10/22. You & partner have your G23's and, while taking continuous fire, have to wait the 90+ minutes for SWAT because you cannot get a good shot off?