Are the same, or should be. Cops ARE civilians. And I don't think it is right that cops get to play by certain different rules than non-police. Especially when not on the clock.
If a non-police person has a duty to retreat from a conflict, then cops should have the same duty in the same circumstance.
If non-police are required special trigger locks or Smart Gun Chips, then cops should be too. In fact cops should be required FIRST.
The police never USE full auto. They shoud have to jump through the same hoops I do to get a machine gun. And why are they deployed with one? In what conceivable circumstance is full auto usage police policy? If a police officer can use a certain type of weapon, that same weapon should be as available to all law abiding citizens in that particular prefecture.
Off duty cops get to CCW in Maryland as a matter of course. That courtesy should be extended to me as well. Or make the police officer apply just like I do and be accepted or denied for the same reasons under the May Issue regime or make the state Shall Issue.
Being a prohibitted person should preclude someone from a law enforcement career where the officer carries a duty weapon. And becoming a prohibitted person should be grounds for instant dismissal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I seem to remember a time when police and fire personnel were not included on the list of who is not considered a civilian. I believe the definition of civilian was a non-combatant in a war zone occupied by a foreign military. When Italy surrendered to the Allies their non-military population were considered civilians. Over the years it seems to me that the police started referring to Citizens as civilians. I take offense to being called a civilian in my own country. I am a citizen first and foremost. I had trouble bringing up older Webster editions where I could look up the definition online. I will continue my search and see if I can find the definition I paraphrased earlier.
Post a Comment