blogger whines about cops being as limited in personal firearms as other MA residents

[gejohnston]

Working as a LEO in MA it has been my experience that many officers’ knowledge of MA guns laws usually only extends to the classes of LTC's there are. The laws in this state are so intricate and confusing many officers either take false information as fact, or are just completely ignorant to the plethora of restrictions. MA LEO’s should note that the laws in this state effectively handicap officers the same it does civilians when it comes to firearms.

Sounds like your gun laws are poorly written all around. As for being handicapped, try that whine on a cop in Ontario that can't carry off duty at all, and still have to follow the same laws for personal firearms. Oh yeah, how about on duty cops in UK or Norway?

MA requires it’s officers to apply for and carry an LTC if they want to own or carry any firearms that were not department issued. That requirement alone is absolutely ridiculous. This is not the case in many states. In most states a sworn law enforcement officer need only show a badge and Department ID to purchase a firearm.

First off fuzz, you are a civilian too, unless you are military police. So? You should be outraged that the people who are shooting at you are not limited by any law. In a lot of those states, cops have to buy their guns and ammunition out of their own pocket, so what are you whining about?

So basically unless your department will vouch for you if anything should ever arise you are basically in violation of MA laws if you, as a law enforcement officer, want to personally own any of the equipment you may use every day at work. Good luck getting your department to claim any personally owned weapons are for work purposes, unless you’re at a small department and on a first name basis with the chief.

Then you are just as equal as everyone else.

As sworn officers in MA we should be outraged that we a subject to the same overbearing restrictions civilians are. Especially when we use and operate the same “banned” equipment on a daily basis. We can have a 15 round capacity Glock at home because its department issued but cannot have a similar handgun in our homes if it is personally owned. Where is the logic in that?

So, WTF makes you better than non LE in Mass?

http://www.masscops.com/threads/how-ma-gun-laws-affect-leos.107053/
As you can guess, I have zero sympathy for the writer. What is carried on duty is one thing, but personal firearms should follow the same regulations as everyone else.
I have a lot of cops in my family, I have no problem with cops. I have a problem with those wanting to be more equal than others.

[SlimJimmy]

1. As I read it, they are saying since they are familiar with the weapon they use at work

and what capacity it has, they should also be allowed to carry the same setup at home. It really doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me. A simple exemption for LEO in MA would be an easy fix.

[gejohnston]

2. It is very unreasonable

because there is no difference between a Glock with the factory standard 15 round magazine than the same pistol with a magazine modified for ten rounds, so it is not a valid argument even if it was making it. What he is saying is that the law is bullshit and he shouldn't have to follow it. That makes it unreasonable. There should be no exemption for LEO when it comes to personally owned weapons.

[SlimJimmy]

3. Your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I view it as I previously stated.

[beevul]

8. Thats not opinion...

"there is no difference between a Glock with the factory standard 15 round magazine than the same pistol with a magazine modified for ten rounds"

That's a fact. Nothing "opinion" about it.

[SlimJimmy]

10. There's quite a difference if you are counting shots and think you have five more

because that's how you've been trained. That's something that military shooters and LEO understand. If you are part of these groups, then I don't need to explain the concept of fight as you train. If you are not, then I don't think I'd be able to convince you of the difference.

[gejohnston]

12. actually, that is not how the military is trained

so, since I am retired military, should I be exempt from the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Hughes Amendment and have my own assault rifle, the real select fire ones, instead of the semi auto so called "assault weapon"? My own light machine gun?

[SlimJimmy]

14. Actually it *is* since I was specifically trained in firearms use in close quarters.

While *in* the military. If you don't count your shots, you are in big trouble. Apparently the Air Force doesn't do close quarter combat.

[gejohnston]

16. some units do, but that isn't a legitiame reason

since he would still carry a dept issue weapon off duty that would have a standard magazine.

[sarisataka]

21. I never counted shots

in CQB training, instructing or application. There are far too many other things going on to try and keep track of a number. Reload drills using cover and providing overwatch is what keeps you out of trouble. A backup weapon isn't a bad idea either

[SlimJimmy]

22. It could be that certain teams do and others not. I was taught to keep a rough count of what I had

expended. Especially with a shotgun, shoot two load two - to keep the chamber always ready.

[sarisataka]

24. Shotguns are a special case

since you can reload without changing a magazine. In that case, slipping in a couple shells at every chance makes sense.
For other weapons like M-9, M-4, MP-5, the best practical is knowing you have fired some, many or most. If you have fired many or most a tactical reload may be in order.

Even basic tracking like that is not easy. In high speed situations I've seen many top shooters make the statement "^@^@! I'm out" then drop under cover for a quick change or grab their secondary.

I have seen instructors try to keep track of (30-x=bangsleft) rounds, IME at the first incoming shots math skills decline drastically

[SlimJimmy]

25. I was talking to an LEO this morning about this. He is a master marksman and instructor. He said

that instead of counting specifically (as I was taught), he teaches his tactical students to be *generally* aware of the count. But as you said, stress can change the math. That's why I'm in favor of both handgun and shotgun stress ranges where the shooter is both physically and mentally challenged, As I said in an earlier post, fight like we train.

Good and well informed post, though.

[CokeMachine]

9. Some animals are more eaual than others?

Happy to see you agree with that!!! Need to add the thingy!!

[SlimJimmy]

11. In the case of LEO, I *do* believe they deserve an exemption from the law.

It's minor issue that seems to have some folk's bowels in an uproar.

[gejohnston]

13. Why?

Why should a cop be able to buy as a personal weapon, not a duty weapon, that is different than anyone else? There is no legitimate reason for it. It isn't minor, it is about having an equal society. Why take a way from a group that is least likely to commit crimes like murder, people without criminal records, but give to a group that isn't more law abiding? They don't need, as personal weapons, anything I don't have. They deserve nothing other than what is issued to them. The blogger hasn't provided a legitimate argument beyond he thinks the MA law is bullshit, which it is, but doesn't want to follow it.

[SlimJimmy]

15. I've already explained why in my previous posts.

[gejohnston]

17. still not a valid reason

because we are talking about personal weapons, not department issue. NonLE, if they are going to get in a shoot out, is going to be in close quarters. So, they would have to count their rounds more while repelling a home invasion. I'm missing the logic. But then, this law that Mitt signed is stupid to begin with. That is what happens when you have ignorant people regulating things they know nothing about based on emotion.
But then, I have yet to see a good argument for restricting nonLE magazines either. Most gun laws are not very logical. Is there a logical reason a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel is regulated the same as a machine gun, while adding an extra inch is a nonissue?

[Eleanors38]

18. "Exemptions..."

That's the problem, and tracks the increasing militarization of LEOs (relative to the civilian population) since the rise of SWAT teams. There was a time when police carried a revolver and had ready-access to shotguns. And so did most Americans. LEOs' firepower has since increased in response to the perceived threat posed by criminals. In my state, what civilians can keep and bear has increased as well; there is consistency with constitutional intent. The source in the OP wants superior firepower -- for (presumably) law enforcement only. This would leave Mass. citizens in an inferior position to defend against the SAME PERCEIVED THREAT.

So LEOs have to maintain the state's own peculiar consistency of hoop-jumping and restrictions for civilians. (None of this, of course, applies to criminals and their threat.)

[SlimJimmy]

23. As I have outlined earlier, I believe that LEO have a unique issue and should be exmpted for certain

laws. For example, using an M4 or MP5 for SWAT teams. These weapons are designed for close quarter searches and combat. I don't think the average citizen has a specific need for a fully auto or three round burst M4 or MP5.

Again, each of us can have a valid opinon based on our own experience and knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that.

[gejohnston]

26. again, we are not talking about issued duty weapons

we are talking about personal weapons as in he wants to go to Walmart and buy stuff for his personal use. That makes your point completely invalid.

an M4 or MP5 for SWAT teams. These weapons are designed for close quarter searches and combat. I don't think the average citizen has a specific need for a fully auto or three round burst M4 or MP5.

unless they are into going to the range and turning a lot of money into noise. Again, he was talking about personal weapons. The ATF isn't going to let him register a post 1986 automatic weapon to him. They will let the police department register one for him to use on duty, and would be stored at the police armory.

[SlimJimmy]

30. I am also referring to privately owned weapons that are also the same brand

and type as their duty weapon, as well as similar weapons that should be exempted. Again, it's just my opinion, not a statement of fact. I've spoken with several LEO''s about this today, and they generally agree with my opinion. They echo my sentiment that it's not that big a deal, and that a simple exemption would be an easy fix.

Why so many in this thread are so upset with what is a relatively minor issue is beyond me. LEO's *are* different to some extent. They train differently and have a different mission than the average citizen. Most, if not all, are charged with protecting the public both on and off duty. Again, I see no issue at all with allowing them to have 15 or more rounds in their privately owned weapons.

[Eleanors38]

28. To an extent, I agree, and tolerate the "parity" that exists now

with regards civilian/LEO weapons types. (It is a false parity with some LEOs using full & select fire, and civilians using semi-auto only, but I put up with the constitutional distortion.) What bothers me is some states seek to further restrict citizens from obtaining arms & accessories from a "global" selection which, for them, has reached stasis in the semi-auto, giving rise to a Catch 22 for MA police, and the need for special exemptions from what civilians face. I put up with it for full-auto, but this is unfair for other weaponry, and why even some reactionary states like Texas have it right regarding guns.

Thank you for a respectful conversation.

[SlimJimmy]

32. You're welcome. I very much enjoy a robust yet respectful debate. All points of

view should be considered, evaluated, then commented on. By the way, I get your point of view and appreciate the input.

Thank you for a respectful conversation.

[jeepnstein]

29. There's really nothing special...

about the requirements for a good duty weapon for police work. Whatever the State allows private citizens is fine for their police. So if a citizen can't buy full-auto why is it such a hot idea for an officer? Full auto, short barrels, you name it, if a lawful citizen can't have it then neither should the police.

I own my own duty weapons and they are 100% legal for any private citizen in the State of Ohio. Guns are really not that important for police work anyway, unless something's going terribly wrong.

[SlimJimmy]

31. A duty weapon is an intrgral part of police work. Whether its used or not is really

not the issue. The threat of deadly force or presentation of deadly force is a very valuable step in the continuum of force. Imagine if those two steps were removed. Verbal persuasion, unarmed self defense, impact weapon, working dog, ... shoot.

Guns are really not that important for police work anyway,

[jeepnstein]

34. Yeah...

but once you've started up the force continuum you've kind of lost control of the situation, for the most part. Lots of people like to portray police work as one continual street fight. The reality is quite different. The firearm is just one part of a larger picture. Too often people on gun boards make it sound much more important than it really is.

When I worked the wide open road it was not at all uncommon for me to be one of maybe three deputies out for the entire county. Using force was something you really didn't want to do if you could avoid it. And for the most part that strategy worked.

It's a part of the uniform and must always be worn but the most important tool at your disposal is always sitting between your ears.

[SlimJimmy]

35. I agree, I understand completely. Good post, good summation of LE work.

That's why the continuum exists and why verbal persuasion is listed first. My answer to those who want to know what LE is all about can be summed up in the phrase "90% boredom interrupted by 10% sheer terror."

[oneshooter]

36. As far as I know in Texas all LEO exept DPS purchase their own sidearms.

DPS officers are issued a SIG( not sure which model) in .357SIG. They are allowed to carry a personal long arm, as long as they qualify with it.

[ExCop-LawStudent]

37. Nope, off the top of my head a lot of LEOs are issued guns.

A bunch of PDs issue handguns. Mine issued Sigs in .40 & .45, while I was there. Dallas PD issues the Sig 226R DAK in 9mm (older officers are grandfathered in). Austin PD issues the S&W M&P in .40 cal. San Antonio just switched from Glock to S&W M&P in .40.

Amarillo issues the Glock, as does Arlington, Bryan, Carrollton, Dallas SO.

Harris SO issues the S&W M&P.

Hurst used to issue the 1911 in .45ACP, but I don't know if they still do.

Lancaster issues the Sig, as does Laredo.

Lewisville issues the H&K USP.

BTW, TXDPS issues the Sig P226/229 DAK in .357Sig and issues the Bushmaster M4A3TX rifle.

[oneshooter]

38. I am more familiar with HPD, HCSO, and the Constables office here.

These are the officers that I deal with, mainly the HCSO.

[rdharma]

4. Don't these guys take their duty guns home when off duty?

[gejohnston]

5. yes,

they want to go to a gun shop and get service that a MA can't.

[rdharma]

6. I would say........ NO!

Personal purchases should be governed by the same laws as everybody else in the state.

[gejohnston]

7. I agree, that's what he is whining about.

[Eleanors38]

19. Damn, the planets have aligned "with Jupiter and Mars."

[CokeMachine]

20. Wow, hell must have forzen over. I agree with you for a change.

[rdharma]

27. I would also require that the officer qualify with any off-duty weapon .....

...... he/she intends to use for concealed carry in public.

On duty or off duty........ if you're carrying that badge and might have to act under color of law, you need to be packing a weapon that you qualified on.

[SlimJimmy]

33. Most departments require officers to qualify with their off-duty weapon. It is the rule

and not the exception.