Exemption for cops and vets

[Hopalong]

I can't be there in person today because of work, but I've been checking Twitter every so often to keep an eye on what the other side is doing. I'm seeing lots of chatter about an exemption on the AWB for cops and vets.

My reply to them (and yes, I have been replying) is this: While I appreciate their service, why does that service give them more rights than me?

Ultimately what this "exemption" is is a little bit of sugar to help the medicine go down. They're trying to appeal to delegates who are vets and retired cops with the whole "hey, if I can keep mine, it can't be bad" logic.

It won't work on them. If anything, they're the ones most supporting us.

Let's point out the flaw in their logic to everyone else. Service to this country, while great and honorable, does not grant cops and vets more rights than other people. What about firefighters? They put their lives on the line for our safety but I don't see an exemption for them.

 

[Jim12]

I can't be there in person today because of work, but I've been checking Twitter every so often to keep an eye on what the other side is doing. I'm seeing lots of chatter about an exemption on the AWB for cops and vets.

My reply to them (and yes, I have been replying) is this: While I appreciate their service, why does that service give them more rights than me?

Ultimately what this "exemption" is is a little bit of sugar to help the medicine go down. They're trying to appeal to delegates who are vets and retired cops with the whole "hey, if I can keep mine, it can't be bad" logic.

It won't work on them. If anything, they're the ones most supporting us.

Let's point out the flaw in their logic to everyone else. Service to this country, while great and honorable, does not grant cops and vets more rights than other people. What about firefighters? They put their lives on the line for our safety but I don't see an exemption for them.

No way. We'll infringe on everybody's rights except for cops and vets? How about an exemption for law abiding citizens? It used to be that only felons forfeited their Constitutional Rights. Now we have to be in a select group to have earned them? Not.

 

[Lloyd]

I can't be there in person today because of work, but I've been checking Twitter every so often to keep an eye on what the other side is doing. I'm seeing lots of chatter about an exemption on the AWB for cops and vets.

My reply to them (and yes, I have been replying) is this: While I appreciate their service, why does that service give them more rights than me?

Ultimately what this "exemption" is is a little bit of sugar to help the medicine go down. They're trying to appeal to delegates who are vets and retired cops with the whole "hey, if I can keep mine, it can't be bad" logic.

It won't work on them. If anything, they're the ones most supporting us.

Let's point out the flaw in their logic to everyone else. Service to this country, while great and honorable, does not grant cops and vets more rights than other people. What about firefighters? They put their lives on the line for our safety but I don't see an exemption for them.

I agree, it is just to quiet the resistance. They do not want a bunch of vets and ex-police up there protesting the constitutionality of the bill. Bad PR.

 

[dist1646]

I think it is in regard to the training requirements only. Not a big deal there, but as a vet, I am not buying any of their bill.

 

[Jaybeez]

double edged sword.

on one hand, we need everyone to fight on our side, cops, vets, railroad police, ect.

one the other hand, equal protection, capricious and arbitrary, it would possibly help us in court.

 

[Blaster229]

I can't be there in person today because of work, but I've been checking Twitter every so often to keep an eye on what the other side is doing. I'm seeing lots of chatter about an exemption on the AWB for cops and vets.

My reply to them (and yes, I have been replying) is this: While I appreciate their service, why does that service give them more rights than me?

Ultimately what this "exemption" is is a little bit of sugar to help the medicine go down. They're trying to appeal to delegates who are vets and retired cops with the whole "hey, if I can keep mine, it can't be bad" logic.

It won't work on them. If anything, they're the ones most supporting us.

Let's point out the flaw in their logic to everyone else. Service to this country, while great and honorable, does not grant cops and vets more rights than other people. What about firefighters? They put their lives on the line for our safety but I don't see an exemption for them.

Are you sure this exemption doesn't refer to actual working police carrying their agency weapons and military under orders? I'm probably wrong because I haven't kept up with this version.

 

[cantonglocker]

doesn't the law need to apply equally to all citizens? Wouldnt this be a slam dunk to overturn in the courts?

 

[Hopalong]

double edged sword.

on one hand, we need everyone to fight on our side, cops, vets, railroad police, ect.

one the other hand, equal protection, capricious and arbitrary, it would possibly help us in court.

doesn't the law need to apply equally to all citizens? Wouldnt this be a slam dunk to overturn in the courts?

That thought crossed my mind, but that's a concern for after April 9th.

Are you sure this exemption doesn't refer to actual working police carrying their agency weapons and military under orders? I'm probably wrong because I haven't kept up with this version.

They were discussing a proposed House amendment to add an exemption to the AWB. It's not in the bill yet. I doubt we can even see the text of the amendment unless it gets voted on.

 

[NatBoh]

As a former military man, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

That Constititution guarantees the Civil Rights of ALL Americans, not just a select few. If my fellow Americans aren't entitled to their rights, then I will not accept special treatment designed to buy my support and silence.

Take your special exemption and shove it up your ass.

 

[Schwabe]

double edged sword.

on one hand, we need everyone to fight on our side, cops, vets, railroad police, ect.

one the other hand, equal protection, capricious and arbitrary, it would possibly help us in court.

this +1

 

[MadCat0911]

I agree, it is just to quiet the resistance. They do not want a bunch of vets and ex-police up there protesting the constitutionality of the bill. Bad PR.

But they're still telling me that, even though I own 3 "assault weapons" I'm not allowed to buy more. Of course I'm going to protest that. Regardless of if I'm fine with the parts I'm exempted from applying to others. I don't get their mentality of "well, the vets won't have to pay for a license, so they'll be okay with the rest of this bill."

 

[Tidewatcher]

Divide and conquer is their strategy. Stay united, kill the bill. Remove it's supporters. Support our advocates. Back on task.

 

[FrankOceanXray]

It is awful legislation.

It is an effort to appease enough to get what they still want...

 

[ThatIsAFact]

doesn't the law need to apply equally to all citizens? Wouldnt this be a slam dunk to overturn in the courts?

Slam dunk? I think not. Most laws do not "apply equally to all citizens." They make distinctions between groups, explicitly or in application. For example, income tax laws take a higher percentage of money from people who have higher incomes. The courts review distinctions to see if there is some "rational basis" for them, which is a low hurdle. If the law infringes on a constitutional right, then a stricter standard might be applied, but the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet made it clear what kind of standard will be applied to this sort of thing. There is a federal law, in effect since 2004, that allows certain retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction, and as far as I know, nobody has suggested that this is a violation of equal protection doctrine.

Nobody should be very confident that the courts will overturn anything currently under discussion, although some of it is certainly constitutionally suspect in my opinion. Keep in the mind that a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit recently upheld Maryland's permit-issuance system -- would you say that is a law that "applies equally to all citizens"?

 

[Docster]

First, make sure the exemption being mentioned isn't regarding training requirements that may be put in place for firearms. Wouldn't be the first time somebody thought something but that something turned out to be something else.

Having said that, there's no reason for military and police to be exempt from owning assault-style guns if nobody else can.

 

[Lloyd]

But they're still telling me that, even though I own 3 "assault weapons" I'm not allowed to buy more. Of course I'm going to protest that. Regardless of if I'm fine with the parts I'm exempted from applying to others. I don't get their mentality of "well, the vets won't have to pay for a license, so they'll be okay with the rest of this bill."

I realize it does not make sense, that is the point. None of this makes sense, it just is. Could you imagine the protest if there was no exception of Police and Mil in the NY ban? There is no way it would have passed, because they needed to parade a bunch of Cops around saying they support the bill.

The last thing they want is to have former police protest a bill that has the support of politically appointed Police Commissioners. It would appear phony in the eyes of public opinion. They are not trying to gain your support, but rather to quell enough of the resistance.

I am a proud Vet as well, and I have no idea how many assault weapons I own until they pass this bill, but most people dont care unless it hits them personally. It is sad but it is the truth, regardless of the oath. In fact the media and their biased reporting has gone out of their way to highlight members of the Military who do support the ban (e.g. Gen. McChrystal, Pvt. Joe who doesnt know sh*t). It is obvious we enjoy alot of support from law enforcement, but if there was no exemption then there would be no bill. There would be no way to garnish enough support, that appears legitimate in the eyes of a very biased media,to parade around to have an impact without a few key Law Enforcement Officers. The support of the Police has a lot of sway in the eyes of public opinion.

Just my opinion take it for what it is worth

 

[ThatIsAFact]

The bill passed by the Senate contains the following clause, among the exceptions to the general ban on acquisition of new "assault" weapons after October 1, 2013:

(7) POSSESSION BY A PERSON WHO IS RETIRED IN GOOD STANDING FROM SERVICE WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE STATE OR A LOCAL UNIT IN THE STATE AND IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE IF: (I) THE ASSAULT WEAPON OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED TO THE PERSON BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ON RETIREMENT; OR (II) THE ASSAULT WEAPON OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE WAS PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY THE PERSON FOR OFFICIAL USE WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY BEFORE RETIREMENT.

 

[dblas]

I can't be there in person today because of work, but I've been checking Twitter every so often to keep an eye on what the other side is doing. I'm seeing lots of chatter about an exemption on the AWB for cops and vets.

My reply to them (and yes, I have been replying) is this: While I appreciate their service, why does that service give them more rights than me?

Ultimately what this "exemption" is is a little bit of sugar to help the medicine go down. They're trying to appeal to delegates who are vets and retired cops with the whole "hey, if I can keep mine, it can't be bad" logic.

It won't work on them. If anything, they're the ones most supporting us.

Let's point out the flaw in their logic to everyone else. Service to this country, while great and honorable, does not grant cops and vets more rights than other people. What about firefighters? They put their lives on the line for our safety but I don't see an exemption for them.

Right now as written, exemptions are for police and military in pursuit of their duty (while in uniform/on duty) to have a (banned) firearm, but they are unable to own them unless they are grandfathered like the rest of us.

The other exemption for LE and military is the training aspect.

 

[ThatIsAFact]

Right now as written, exemptions are for police and military in pursuit of their duty (while in uniform/on duty) to have a (banned) firearm, but they are unable to own them unless they are grandfathered like the rest of us.

See the language that I posted above (we posted at the same time). There is a limited exception for acquisitions of "assault" weapons by certain retired law enforcement officers, after the grandfathered/effective date (October 1, 2013).

 

[bogus130]

But they're still telling me that, even though I own 3 "assault weapons" I'm not allowed to buy more. Of course I'm going to protest that. Regardless of if I'm fine with the parts I'm exempted from applying to others. I don't get their mentality of "well, the vets won't have to pay for a license, so they'll be okay with the rest of this bill."

Sad thing is that they don't care about what youu think, only those 2 or 3 officials that will stand behind them (literally and figuratively). So they just chit chat behind the scenes with those 2-3 officials, find out what they will need to get their support and do only that. Screw the rest of us.