So I’ve been wondering.
Aren’t the carve outs in all the gun-control laws for LEO’s, Military, etc. unconstitutional under the “equal protection under the law” thingy? I mean, why does one group get special treatment and exemptions from the laws that apply to me?
I can see the reasoning on some of the exemptions for currently active LEOs as even when they are off duty they would be expected to respond to any serious crimes they see occurring.
Exemptions for retired LEOs and off duty military seem a lot harder to justify. No offense meant to everyone here who has served in either capacity.
I would argue the carve outs are not unconstitutional, or, at least, they are less problematic than the existence of the law itself.
But, yeah…I don’t personally support exceptions for law enforcement other than some locations being off limits except on duty officers.
I support the type of firearm, caliber, magazine capacity, bullet type, etc, being the exact same restrictions for all law enforcement, all the time, as for private citizens.
And off duty LE should have the same off limits places/permit requirements/etc as private citizens.
This is not only logical straight up (IMO), but also, would help prevent these ridiculous control laws from passing in the first place
As in, rather than restricting cops…stop restricting everybody else.
(again, other than some exceptions there are going to be places on duty LE has guns that others cannot…but those should IMO be limited only to places with secure access through guarded metal detectors for all like jails, prisons, nuclear facilities, courts, secure commercial airport, etc)
I can’t. If certain firearms, as well as certain capacity magazines, are “too dangerous” for me then why are they OK for police officers to have.
Especially since this organization is the same one they’re accusing of “systemic racism” and are trying to defend. So you (general “you”) want the only people you’re accusing of racism to be the only ones to have these “weapons of war and the high-capacity magazines” to go with them?
Those locations, in my mind, would be the few “sensitive places” like you mentioned. At which point it’s really not them being allowed to have better weapons than myself but more having the security clearance to access certain places with said weapons that we should all have access to.
Which I’m okay with.
Same. If it’s okay for the police to have the gear, it should be okay for the “common folk” to have it.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here but it’s always bugged me to see these laws written and infringing on everyone else but then adding a section for “the special group”.
Heck, there was one gun control law that I think almost passed in either Oregon or Washington, that wouldn’t have exempted the police. Off or on duty. You probably wouldn’t be surprised on how fast it was amended to correct that little oversight.
Wondering is the best thing one can do. Any answer one can give would cause one to ask why. Why?¿
I enjoy drooling at guns marked “for LE only”
I’m for that “Shall Not Be Infringed” part of that pesky thing called the Constitution