GlockJock
NES Member
Absolutely.... along with about 85% of the MA cops that I know..
(Just sayin' [emoji6])
Last edited:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
How will the new gun laws effect LEO's if passed??
- Thread starter mtsfitness
- Start date
(Just sayin' [emoji6])
71montess
NES Member
Why do you argue that former loes should get this special right to own a "assault weapon with high cap mags" and exclude me ?
I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely reporting what I've been told as factual by people in authority.
As for advocating that the law should be cleaned up, it did not meet the intent of those that put it forth.
I am against someone being legal one day and becoming a felon overnight due to a law change (let's say >7 rds suddenly becomes "large capacity, as Patrick had advocated and those under 21 that bought Ruger 10/22s on FIDs now are in illegal possession) . . . or retiring/leaving a position in LE where it was legal ONLY when they were active. In both of these cases I advocated to prevent this happening . . . one was for civilians and one was for "a special class" as your type would call it. [You can also advocate that LEOs be prosecuted for possession or carrying issued weaponry/mags if you wish . . . in MA we both likely have the same chance of success!]
This is MA, there is no way in hell that any law will delete the AWB, never going to happen. Only if USSC says it is unconstitutional and even then it would probably take a federal case by Comm2A to "convince" MA that the Constitution really applies to MA also.
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Are you arguing a Leo using state own mags should be allowed to buy there own "hi cap" mags after they retire?
At least if they can buy and possess them a day before retirement, that they don't become felons the day after retirement.
From a practical point of view, since there is no way to prove when someone bought mags, if they remain legal to possess after retirement they might as well be legal to purchase as well. Why let a pissed off DA go on a witchhunt at taxpayer expense to try to prove that one more mag the retiree owns was bought after retirement?
Personally I'm all for anyone not a PP being able to own anything in small arms (no nukes please) but I'm also a realist and know that will never sell in MA!
For ****s sake, you guys just need to chill the **** out. This was a pretty basic, academic discussion about the law and then it got derailed into a "cops vs peons" thread. I don't see Len or anyone else advocating that this is a "really good idea" etc... but with all the noise if someone legitimately wants information about this law, having this other garbage piled on top of it (with a closed thread to cap off the pipe full of shit) isn't going to help them.
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
I was trying to understand what you meant . Hope you got that.
My understanding was before rule changes when they where off duty they had to follow the awb . I thought you where saying they should be allowed to own them after retiring .
Not exactly.
First it wasn't a "rule" change but a law change. Big difference wrt enforcement possibilities.
Previously it was very muddy and open to lots of interpretations.
- Any LEO could carry their duty weapons off-duty as well. They didn't have to turn in large-cap mags at the end of each shift.
- If a chief suggested/authorized or mandated off-duty carry, then anything they carried would be "for law enforcement purposes" and exempt from the ban.
- If a chief forbid off-duty carry then nothing other than issued weapons could have large-cap mags.
- One could make the case either way for mags privately purchased for duty use (PDs are stingy, only 3 pistol mags and a few rifle mags usually issued). Officers who took personal survival seriously bought and carried spare loaded mags with them to work each shift (BTW, these are usually the "good guys" who are on our side wrt 2A issues). Legality??
- Some departments don't supply guns but authorize private purchase of specific guns to be used on duty. This was another potentially gray area. And the day you retired, you'd become a felon for possession of the mags, etc.
New law:
- Any active LEO can purchase and possess any large-cap mags or new AWs, even for personal use only.
- The day they retire/leave the department, it is at least a gray area if they instantly become felons or not!
Let's put this in perspective of civilians now:
- Both Linsky and Patrick proposed laws that would have made Ruger 10/22s large-capacity guns. Thankfully that provision was dropped from the final bill, but let's play along that it did pass that way for a moment.
- 18-19 yo (for example) bought a perfectly legal 10/22 on his/her FID card.
- The day that the law goes into effect, said 18-19 yo is now a felon in possession of a large-capacity gun and magazines, facing a potential of 10 years in prison and Federal PP status for life just because they got up that morning!
- What was legal for them to own one day makes them a felon the next day.
- This is precisely what I object to in both the old and new laws wrt LEOs. It is unjust regardless of who the target is and needs to be changed. In the civilian case, we need to NOT change the law defining what is large-capacity. In the case of the LEO, we need to change the law to make it clear that if it was legal to own when active, it is legal to own when retired or leaving the department. [Best case is to make the AWB and large-cap mag ban both go away, but that would never fly politically in MA, so we need to focus on the next best thing.]
SHOCKNAWE
NES Member
So I'm hearing that a few DC corrections officers won an appeal over some retarded ruling that they were not covered under the umbrella of the "Badge" to carry as a Law Enforcement Officer. Something to do with the LEOSA? This will probably upset some Police Officers because they believe that corrections officers are wannabe cops ect, but in reality they probably are in just as much of potential danger from ex cons as cops are.
If the laws exclude the makers and the enforcers it's really not a law .....it's Tyrannical is it not.
There should be no special treatment....
That said I hope they get somewhere with that at least it is one more group going up against the machine..
There should be no special treatment....
That said I hope they get somewhere with that at least it is one more group going up against the machine..
You are a bit behind, mate. It does not apply to police at all. In fact, the AG's office ironically refers to cops ability to purchase and own assault weapons as a "right". That is correct. They have a right to keep and bear assault weapons according to the AG, while the people have no right to keep and bear any arms, but rather the mere privilege to keep and bear certain arms at certain locations subject to government approval. Sad, ain't it?
http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html
Legal citation:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131M
Last edited:
