TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote: Most of us here don't think the police "SHOULD need AR's" either. But as the complexion of crimes has changed, so have tactics and weapons for LEO.

"Should" they "need" high powered weaponry? Not in the society we lived in 30 yrs.> ago, but these are not those times (unfortunately).

I would wager...if you asked the average patrolman if he/she is happy about needing increasingly powerful/tactical weaponry...they would say no. Everyone would love to go back to the days where police mostly wrote speeding tickets, cleared the way for parades and funerals, and occasionally ran into a bonified bad guy. Times have changed, and not for the better.

I understand that the police can use a good rifle. but I believe that the big cities always had such a need. During prohibition LEOs had access to fully automatic weapons. When I was growing up in a small town the cops had shotguns in the cars and rifles locked up at the station(m14s and garrands ) I don't know what use the guns at the station were, but they were available. Today the police may want them in some of their patrol vehicles, but the actual deployment of them is still very rare.

HKUSP45C wrote:No, Nitrogen, it isn't even a "pretend technically" straw purchase.

A straw purchase is not defined as one person buying a gun for another person. That is perfectly legal (federally, local laws may differ) in just about every circumstance.

A straw purchase occurs when a person buys a gun for someone whom they know is denied possession or purchase by law. I doubt anyone on the Phoenix Police Department fits that description.

A straw purchase is EXACTLY DEFINED as one person buying a gun for another person.

A straw purchase is defined as where the buyer conducting the transaction is not the "actual purchaser", but is acting as a proxy for another person.

So if I give you $700 to buy a pistol for me, you're not committing a felony? Many bloodthirsty officers at the BATFE will be very happy to show you just how wrong you are.

I Invite you to point out the section on the 4473 where it says a proxy purchase is OK as long as the person is legally allowed to own firearms.

Please excuse my sharpness, but such myths are dangerous to your freedom and future ability to own firearms.

flintknapper wrote:

kitty wrote:I am actually on another message board talking to people who don't think he should have done this. They honestly do not think the police should need AR's, and this is a conservative board. Unbelievable.

Hi Kitty,

Most of us here don't think the police "SHOULD need AR's" either. But as the complexion of crimes has changed, so have tactics and weapons for LEO.

"Should" they "need" high powered weaponry? Not in the society we lived in 30 yrs.> ago, but these are not those times (unfortunately).

I would wager...if you asked the average patrolman if he/she is happy about needing increasingly powerful/tactical weaponry...they would say no. Everyone would love to go back to the days where police mostly wrote speeding tickets, cleared the way for parades and funerals, and occasionally ran into a bonified bad guy. Times have changed, and not for the better.

*sigh* I know that, this isn't what I meant at all. These people do not think that the police should be allowed to be in possession of ARs, for any reason. They are afraid that they will use it for evil, instead of protecting themselves or citizens. In other words, they don't like cops. How can police do their jobs if they are out gunned? One of the reasons Spade bought them the rifles was to help them with the drug cartels coming out of Mexico and going into the Phoenix.

kitty wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

kitty wrote:I am actually on another message board talking to people who don't think he should have done this. They honestly do not think the police should need AR's, and this is a conservative board. Unbelievable.

Hi Kitty,

Most of us here don't think the police "SHOULD need AR's" either. But as the complexion of crimes has changed, so have tactics and weapons for LEO.

"Should" they "need" high powered weaponry? Not in the society we lived in 30 yrs.> ago, but these are not those times (unfortunately).

I would wager...if you asked the average patrolman if he/she is happy about needing increasingly powerful/tactical weaponry...they would say no. Everyone would love to go back to the days where police mostly wrote speeding tickets, cleared the way for parades and funerals, and occasionally ran into a bonified bad guy. Times have changed, and not for the better.

*sigh* I know that, this isn't what I meant at all. These people do not think that the police should be allowed to be in possession of ARs, for any reason. They are afraid that they will use it for evil, instead of protecting themselves or citizens. In other words, they don't like cops. How can police do their jobs if they are out gunned? One of the reasons Spade bought them the rifles was to help them with the drug cartels coming out of Mexico and going into the Phoenix.

Thank you for the clarification Kitty.

I understand now.

nitrogen wrote:
A straw purchase is EXACTLY DEFINED as one person buying a gun for another person.

A straw purchase is defined as where the buyer conducting the transaction is not the "actual purchaser", but is acting as a proxy for another person.

So if I give you $700 to buy a pistol for me, you're not committing a felony? Many bloodthirsty officers at the BATFE will be very happy to show you just how wrong you are.

I Invite you to point out the section on the 4473 where it says a proxy purchase is OK as long as the person is legally allowed to own firearms.

Please excuse my sharpness, but such myths are dangerous to your freedom and future ability to own firearms.

Uh, no it's not. by your definition a "proxy purchase" IS a straw purchase. and it ain't.
and he didn't buy'em for them. he gave'em the money to buy'em for themselves.

Why don't they just put the Marines on the boarder and let them deal with the drug cartels.

-geo

Correct...otherwise they'd arrest your grandma for giving you birthday money that you used to purchase a gun. Not very logical, eh?

-----

Right..but if she gave you cash and it was in your pocket and you bought the gun, there wouldn't have been a problem.

-----

bburgi wrote:

Morgan wrote:Right..but if she gave you cash and it was in your pocket and you bought the gun, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Oh, I know - I understand it, but I still think it's silly. I had my CHL on hand and my paperwork was already approved. Her handing the money to the guy vs. me handing it to him was a technicality.

And to stay on topic... Kudos to David Spade! That's an awesome gesture.

Yeah, she could have filled out the paperwork for herself and bought it, then given it to you. Buying a gun as a gift is perfectly legal (provided the person you're giving it to can legally possess it).

I always thought that the term straw, like a straw man argument, had a specific connotation. In the case of a straw purchase, the REAL purchaser is the person with the money and the Straw Man is the guy who fills out the paperwork because they're actually eligible, right?

So in the case of Grandma trying to pay when you filled out the paperwork, they were making sure that angelic grandson wasn't procuring a firearm for Ma Barker! LOL

Tell your granny that, she'll think it's a hoot!

Very cool gesture, He didn't have to do it....But does this mean I have to start liking his movies...

Despite his less than stellar talents, I think that David Spade just changed my overall impression of the Film Actors Guild membership (oops, Screen Actors Guild) just a notch up.

bryang wrote:Why don't they just put the Marines on the boarder and let them deal with the drug cartels.

-geo

We already tried that. It resulted in a dead mentally challenged goat herder and a nasty trial.