The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
baldeagle wrote:Boston mayor opposes police plan to arm officers with AR-15s. The plan would strictly control which officers were allowed to have the weapons and under what circumstances they could be used, but that's not enough for the mayor. This is the next logical step in the liberal plan. First you work to disarm the citizens. Then you question why the police have such evil weapons. Finally, the only people left with the firepower to control the populace is the federal government and its armies.
The liberal police chiefs had better wake up and pay attention, because they're next.
The "BG's" have ARs, AKs, 9mm, 45s, 40s and every other type of gun you can buy in the gun stores.scottmeador wrote:Are there valid reasons for non-SWAT officers to have ARs for on duty use? Is giving ARs to these same officers further militarization of the police forces?
If the BGs got 'em then by all means I say yes, but would like to read some differing opinions.
Here is an example. The "North Hollywood Shootout" as it is called was the tipping point for arming patrol officers with more than just their service pistol. Pay particular attention to the "Aftermath and controversy" section.VoiceofReason wrote:The "BG's" have ARs, AKs, 9mm, 45s, 40s and every other type of gun you can buy in the gun stores.scottmeador wrote:Are there valid reasons for non-SWAT officers to have ARs for on duty use? Is giving ARs to these same officers further militarization of the police forces?
If the BGs got 'em then by all means I say yes, but would like to read some differing opinions.
A police officer can come up against any of these at any time. Allowing him/her to only have a handgun is putting them at unreasonable risk. If I were on this department, I would quit and look for other work.
I hope they don't either. Don't take my comments to mean that I wouldn't want law enforcement to be armed with AR15s, I do think they need them. My reluctance was directed at the Boston PD based on their abuse of the 4th amendment in house to house searches (not that they searched, but how they did it) following the marathon bombings. Note I did say that this reluctance doesn't apply to Texas LEOs (or any other department that adheres to the Constitution).mikejarhead wrote:I hope they don't encounter a situation like the Bank of America shootout in N. Hollywood.
Previous incidents are reason for LEOs to have ready access to long guns and unfortunately, unconstitutional and/ or questionable searches such as those in Boston would take place with or without he long guns. The police would still be armed with handguns and making such searches. The problem in that case is not the hardware, but a fundamental lack of understanding, knowledge and respect for the Constitution in the case of illegal searches.GrillKing wrote:I hope they don't either. Don't take my comments to mean that I wouldn't want law enforcement to be armed with AR15s, I do think they need them. My reluctance was directed at the Boston PD based on their abuse of the 4th amendment in house to house searches (not that they searched, but how they did it) following the marathon bombings. Note I did say that this reluctance doesn't apply to Texas LEOs (or any other department that adheres to the Constitution).mikejarhead wrote:I hope they don't encounter a situation like the Bank of America shootout in N. Hollywood.
I used to chat with a Quincy, MA police officer on an LEO forum who said the same thing. No longarms of any kind in their cars.Jumping Frog wrote:I have a first cousin who is a Cambridge, MA police officer. When he visited Houston last fall for the Houston to Austin charity bike ride, I was shocked to find out he is not allowed to have a long gun -- AR or shotgun -- in his patrol car.
Didn't feel like arguing with him, but internally I was rolling my eyes at more Massachusetts nonsense.