Why all the carve-outs?

[Callisto32]

When gun control legislation is proposed, it almost always contains clauses exempting people in "service" of the state from compliance.

Now, I know that I think this is because people that would create gun-control are elitist/statist/better-than-thous that just want to concentrate as much power as possible in their own hands. I base this on the belief that these people must know gun control doesn't work. After all, if it did, the police would not NEED guns, since those they are dealing with would not have them. Since they know that it doesn't work, and do it anyway, I figure that the real motivation must be different.

However, I am also willing to admit that this might be a bit harsh.

I was wondering if those that believe that "civilians" should not have guns but the police should would explain why. I would also like responses from those that might not hold the view, but understand the policy cited as holding up these exemptions.

[one-eyed fat man]

1. Not all of them.

Lautenberg Amendment was passed without the exemption for the police and the military.

Not only was there no exemption, it was made retroactive, thus any policeman or soldier who had EVER plead guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge was immediately unemployable.

Certainly, some of them were really abusive and violent spouses who needed to be disarmed, but some were just as surely caught up in a non-violent drunken screaming match that was settled with a guilty plea and fine decades ago, only to now discover they are forever branded as a wife-beater, regardless of the facts.

http://www.slideserve.com/presentation/7063/Lautenberg-Amendment-Power-Point-from-USMC-JAG

[damntexdem]

2. I think that civilians should be allowed to have guns; but there should be rigorous gun control ...

and there should be carve outs for police and appropriate others.

And this whole issue shouldn't be clouded by those trying to play a rightwing "elitist" card. What bullshit!

[oneshooter]

3. "and appropriate others" Please expand on who lucky others would be. n/t

[PavePusher]

4. And "why".

Why should government agents get exemptions? Are some pigs truely more equal than other pigs?

[-..__...]

16. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

Another example of inequality and selective application of the BOR.

[Callisto32]

6. Bullshit, eh?

"I believe that there should be carve-outs for 'appropriate others.'" But that isn't elitist, right?

[oneshooter]

11. Hear the silence. Feel the confusion. Just can't see any answers. n/t

[cleanhippie]

13. Do you think that the police should or should not be limited to the same arms

available to civilians?

[-..__...]

15. I think civilians should be able to own anything that a PD...

or police officer can own... including full-auto firearms, flash bangs, body armor, chemical sprays, sale/possession of armor piercing ammo, etc.

Just because they wear a badge, does not bestow certain privileges upon them.

[cleanhippie]

18. Agreed. Lets see if I get a response from who I asked.

[oneshooter]

19. I truly doubt that anybody will.

He has been a drive by poster for a long time.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Callisto32]

29. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

"Just because they wear a badge, SHOULD not bestow certain privileges upon them."

I wish you were right, I really do.

[oneshooter]

28. Still waitng, silence is all I hear. Or is that the sound of fear? n/t

[Euromutt]

5. That IS an interesting question, isn't it?

Whenever some there's a proposal to make some technology mandatory on firearms that will supposedly increase public safety--magazine disconnects, internal locks, microstamping, "smart gun" technology--law enforcement gets an exemption. If the technology is so reliable, and so certain to improve public safety, as its proponents claim, why do the cops need or deserve to be exempted?

I don't know that it's a matter of those of a statist bent wanting to concentrate power. Personally, I reckon that it's a tacit acknowledgment that the main effect of mandating these technologies--as of many gun control schemes--will be to harass legal private gun owners with increased costs and red tape, and that any added safety is so negligible that it doesn't justify the added expense to law enforcement agencies.

[Callisto32]

7. That is why I indicated that I was being a bit harsh.

That stuff is where my mind goes when I allow it to get all emotional over the topic.

I REALLY want to see what the bona fide policy arguments for government carve-outs in gun control schemes.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. Without a doubt Police should lead the way with "smart gun" technology.

They are at most risk to having their sidearm taken away and used against them. Police across the country should be screaming for this technology - if it really worked.

[Abq_Sarah]

9. There are a lot of people who view

"Civilians" as dumb animals that must be told what to do, what to think, what to eat, how to vote.

That, by the way, is not limited to any corner of the political spectrum.

[Callisto32]

10. Indeed.

Learning that a large number of people want to control what everybody else does, and all that is different is where they want to "allow" people to continue to make their own decisions is a big part of what drove me to libertarianism.

[Callisto32]

12. Much as I suspected, the silence is deafening.

Maybe I should post up a story about somebody getting shot. Those are much better at getting people to participate, it seems...

[PavePusher]

27. Wait, wait... off in the distance...

is that... the thundering sound... of a herd of crickets?

[davepc]

30. I made a post a few months back about this forum basically becoming a police blotter

and not a venue of discussion of policy.

There's not much in the way of good discussion here anymore. Just threads yelling at each other MADMAN WITH GUN KILLS PEOPLE/CITIZEN WITH CCW SHOOTS BAD GUY and the typical predictable cross yelling.

I don't know if its symptomatic of the moderation of this forum or the fact that since Heller gun policy in this country is for the most part settled law and the rest is just hysteric reactions around the fringes.

[-..__...]

14. Because without the exemption...

any legislation would receive strong opposition from law enforcement agencies and lessen the likelihood of a bill becoming law.

[oneshooter]

17. Still hear the silence, questions unanswered, only silence. n/t

[Callisto32]

20. Because they don't HAVE good policy arguments, I presume.

[jazzhound]

21. The law enforcement exemption in my state (California)

is particularly heinous.

I have a friend who is in the process of moving to a rural area of our county. His property covers 70 acres, and he and his wife will essentially be on their own in terms of protection. He has a prosthetic leg, and can't move about very quickly. His wife has MS. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle with removable large capacity magazines and any "evil features" that he desires, since that's what it would take to defend himself and his wife properly from (potential) multiple attackers on his land.

[PavePusher]

22. Buy magazines (or pistol grips, or flash suppresors, etc.) out of state.

Smuggle them home.

Join the Resistance.

Just sayin'.

[jazzhound]

23. Easily accomplished, and I have no doubt that my friend

will do whatever he feels is necessary to maintain a secure environment for himself and his wife. We really haven't spoken in too much detail about his plans for security.

Not that there's a significant chance of him being busted, but it's pretty sad that a person has to choose between obeying a senseless law and properly fending for him/herself.

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp has stated on record that she'll be haunted to her dying day by the fact that she obeyed Texas law (at the time) and left her revolver in her truck the day the lunatic killed her parents at Luby's Diner.

[Callisto32]

24. Bad people break good laws.

Good people break bad laws.

In the end, I would rather be good, than law-abiding. Sounds like you have faith in your friend of the same. Good on him.

[Callisto32]

25. I have only one issue with your post.

It may be a minor matter, but I think it is important.

When someone controls the langage of a conversations, they control the conversation. I would ask that you consider changing the word you use from "large/high" capacity to "normal" capacity. The weapons that use alleged "high cap" magazines were almost always designed to use such a feeding device. The AR family was originally designed to use magazines of 20 rounds, for example. A 20/30 round magazine for that platform is totally standard, and the weapon will function normally while being fed from it. A high cap would be something like 40+ rounds, and I suspect that is not what you are talking about.

It just makes it sound like the pro-RKBA folks are asking for something special, and the anti-RKBA folks are just trying to keep things "normal." Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Euromutt]

26. "Non-reduced capacity" might be even better, but it's a bit of a mouthful

Such a term would convey that 10-round mags are not the default, while being less ambiguous than "normal" (someone might think 10 rounds is "normal").

[benEzra]

31. I like "full capacity"...

if a pistol was designed with a 17-round magazine in mind, then a 17-rounder is full capacity, and a 33-rounder would be high-capacity (IMO).

If a rifle was designed with a 30-round magazine in mind, then 30 rounds is full capacity and 40+ rounds would be high capacity. At least that's the way I try to use the terms.

FWIW, civilian rifles with 30+ round capacities go waaaaay back; you could buy a lever-action with a 34-round helical magazine in the mid-1870's.

[jazzhound]

32. You are 100% correct -- not sure what I was thinking. NT

[Callisto32]

33. Still waiting. Someone has to have what they at least THINK is a good reason.