Fair and Equal protection under the law

[GUNARCHER]

14th amendment

If this amendment is honored, how can they pass a law that restricts citizens more than citizens that are police?
If they limit the type of firearm or size of magazines for the everyday citizens, should it not also apply to all the citizens including police?
In light of the recent police killings it is apparent that they do not have invinceable protection from criminals. Why should the average armed citizen be made even more defenceless by law?

Just saying

Read More

 

[Osarion]

That's a good point. Cops are citizens as well. They're just "sworn" citizens.

 

[Member 3687]

Because federal and state agencies are above the law as far as they are concerned. Please do not get me wrong because I am very much pro police but many police departments have full auto, M4s with 14 in bbl, short bbl shotguns and other equipment that we either cannot have or have to pay a tax stamp or have to be licensed to get. Not all stations but a good many do.

Then when you look at states that ban all but ten round mags and ARs almost every squad car has an AR with a 30 round mag.

It's been that way for a very long time and will not change from what I can tell.

 

[L84Cabo]

Question: Do you think that our Founders intended that we should all have the same basic rights or that our rights should be different state to state or even county to county within the same state? For example, should a person in California have the same right to speak freely as a person in, say, New York?

Further, what do you think people would do if you had to go down to your local sheriff's office and obtain a permit before you could speak your mind? And that the criteria that the sheriff used to determine if he was going to give you a permit, wasn't based on some standard uniform set of rules, but was based purely on his own subjective opinion...which was different than the opinion of the sheriff in the county next door...and different than the opinion of the sheriff in the county next to that?

What would people do? People would come unhinged. They wouldn't stand for it. And yet, that's exactly how our gun rights are treated.

Respectfully, you're worried about citizens rights being different from those of the police. Yet citizens don't even have the same rights between other citizens. Just saying.

 

[Diamondback]

Here's another example: A Tampa resident can legally carry in that stoner-topia called Colorado on his Florida permit. *I* could not, passing the same standards and meeting the same quals, just because they chose to discriminate against "non-residents."

Oh by the way, those stonertards also don't issue their own NR's so it's "if we don't recognize your permit, go bugger yourself."

How is *that* "equal protection"?

 

[GUNARCHER]

It seems that the 14th amendment might make a good political point to wake up the average voter (and gun owner) about the discrimination.
This year there is a growing sense of unfair law enforcement---think Hillary, Lynch and Obama---there is a rejection of the ruling class this election.
I saw a poll on Real Clear Politics that had Trump ahead of Clinton in Oregon! Things could be changing.
Clout Research (R)

5/10 - 5/13 657 LV 3.8 44 42 Trump +2

 

[PaulB47]

The real reason for the 14th Amendment was not equal protection, which most politicians don't give a rip about, but to reduce the power of the states and to centralize power in Washington DC.

 

[RicInOR]

Question: Do you think that our Founders intended that we should all have the same basic rights or that our rights should be different state to state or even county to county within the same state? For example, should a person in California have the same right to speak freely as a person in, say, New York?

Our founders in order to form the union did indeed write into the constitution that some are less equal than others. Could women vote ? Not until 100 years ago. Were slaves equal persons?


The founders did not bestow upon us our rights. They did restrict certain rights, mostly they restricted what the State (meaning all government) could do.



What are the essential differences between a citizen and a LEO (police officer)?
This might vary from location to location. An sworn officer can arrest someone for a misdemeanor they did not witness.

some info is here:
Citizen's Arrest - FindLaw (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html)

 

[No_Regerts]

It works like a trust. The department must own the weapon.

 

[Slobray]

It works like a trust. The department must own the weapon.

Not in some states. LEO's and/or retired LEO's in the PDRK, CT, MD, and NY are allowed to own guns that the subjects aren't.

HR 218 exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.

Numerous other states allow LEO and/or retired LEO to purchase/own so called "hi cap" mags.

A lot of laws are creating a divide between the LEO and civilian population by making LEO's part of the ruling class (look at what NY did when the police unions started raising hell about a LEO's not being exempt). The major problem is that most police unions, top brass and too many LEO's are taking the bait. Those that the govt has swayed always say the same thing "if you want (insert banned item), maybe you should become one of us". It shouldn't be that way, but it is and will continue as long as the rank and file LEO's do nothing to stop the unions from supporting this behavior.


Ray

 

[Diamondback]

That's also an indication of a blatant renege because the police community offered a quid pro quo of "help us get a foot in the door with LEOSA and we'll help open the door for you on Nationwide Reciprocity."

Promise in one hand, s*** in the other and see which fills first.

 

[GUNARCHER]

in this political atmosphere where the public is tired of the elites being treated differently these types of practices should help high light the hypocrisy of the ruling class.

 

[No_Regerts]

Not in some states. LEO's and/or retired LEO's in the PDRK, CT, MD, and NY are allowed to own guns that the subjects aren't.

HR 218 exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.

Numerous other states allow LEO and/or retired LEO to purchase/own so called "hi cap" mags.

A lot of laws are creating a divide between the LEO and civilian population by making LEO's part of the ruling class (look at what NY did when the police unions started raising hell about a LEO's not being exempt). The major problem is that most police unions, top brass and too many LEO's are taking the bait. Those that the govt has swayed always say the same thing "if you want (insert banned item), maybe you should become one of us". It shouldn't be that way, but it is and will continue as long as the rank and file LEO's do nothing to stop the unions from supporting this behavior.


Ray

Those are just laws that align state with federal law. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act already grants current and retired officers in good standing to conceal-carry in any state. Some states have tried to prosecute officers for doing this, but were slapped in court for not adhering to LEOSA.

 

[No_Regerts]

Not in some states. LEO's and/or retired LEO's in the PDRK, CT, MD, and NY are allowed to own guns that the subjects aren't.

HR 218 exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.

Numerous other states allow LEO and/or retired LEO to purchase/own so called "hi cap" mags.

A lot of laws are creating a divide between the LEO and civilian population by making LEO's part of the ruling class (look at what NY did when the police unions started raising hell about a LEO's not being exempt). The major problem is that most police unions, top brass and too many LEO's are taking the bait. Those that the govt has swayed always say the same thing "if you want (insert banned item), maybe you should become one of us". It shouldn't be that way, but it is and will continue as long as the rank and file LEO's do nothing to stop the unions from supporting this behavior.


Ray

This was in reference to automatic weapons. Our full auto rifles and MP5s are stamped all over "Government Use Only" and are owned by the agency.

 

[Diamondback]

NR and our other Blue Brethren, please do note that my prior was directed more at the "org leadership" level and not a diss on anybody individually or the profession.

 

[Slobray]

This was in reference to automatic weapons. Our full auto rifles and MP5s are stamped all over "Government Use Only" and are owned by the agency.

OK, I understand, but either way there are states that allow LEO's to purchase/own (for private use) so called "assault weapons", "hi cap" mags and "unsafe" guns that civilians aren't.

Those are just laws that align state with federal law. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act already grants current and retired officers in good standing to conceal-carry in any state. Some states have tried to prosecute officers for doing this, but were slapped in court for not adhering to LEOSA.

These laws still equate to LEO's being better than the hoi polloi and are meant to divide us, so the ruling class can have Gestapo/KGB type force for their bidding when the time comes.


Ray

 

[Certaindeaf]

.Why should the average armed citizen be made even more defenceless by law? Just saying

Because the state of California said so?. I mean said. just saying
wow it's a circle!

 

[No_Regerts]

These laws still equate to LEO's being better than the hoi polloi and are meant to divide us, so the ruling class can have Gestapo/KGB type force for their bidding when the time comes.


Ray

I think it would be a rude shock when the majority of LEOs tell them to F*** Off. I would.

 

[WillametteWill]

HR218 doesn't grant any special rights for gun ownership. It's basically 50 state concealed carry but states (and private property owners) can still limit this in some cases. I was able to bring back and forth standard cap mags (that's hi-cap in CA) to the formerly Golden State but with the new laws this is likely gone, haven't had a chance to check yet.

I agree and support the concept that this should be for everyone, not just LEO's. I know it varies by state but in CA, current officers can buy gun off the CA approved list (we just call those "guns" in Oregon) and hi-caps. For the most part older and retired officers are heavy 2A supporters for all...the new crowd? Not sure. In the 80's and 90's cops were shooters. Now many new recruits have very little experience with firearms (exception with military folks of course).

 

[No_Regerts]

It still kills me that the 2A isnt enough for everyone.