And so it begins

[GrillKing]

Based on the unconstitutional tactics used in house to house searches after the marathon bombing, if I lived there I wouldn't want them to have the AR15s. I have no respect for any officer who participated in that or believe it is OK. A JBT tactic pure and simple. I don't have the same view for Texas law enforcement who pretty much don't participate in that kind of nonsense. ARs for Texas LEOs is OK by me.

[VMI77]

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.

Can you say hoist on their own petard? Our illustrious president and his minions have been telling us that these are weapons of war and don't belong on the streets of America. While we all know that this is utter nonsense, it's hard for me to get upset about some politician imposing the same nonsense on the police as they do on the rest of us.

[karder]

I am assuming Martin Walsh has never worked in law enforcement in any capacity; therefore his arbitrary statement that officers don't need AR-15 rifles is not only uneducated and pretentious but is dangerous to the officers. Politicians love to offer opinions and interject themselves into subjects that they don't have the slightest clue about.

[VoiceofReason]

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.

The "BG's" have ARs, AKs, 9mm, 45s, 40s and every other type of gun you can buy in the gun stores.

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.

[williamkevin]

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.

The "BG's" have ARs, AKs, 9mm, 45s, 40s and every other type of gun you can buy in the gun stores.

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.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[stroo]

The bank shootout in CA 10-15 years ago convinced many departments of the need for long guns in the cars. In that shootout, the BGs had armor and automatic rifles. The police that responded initially had hand guns and it took SWAT a while to get there. The BGS pretty much shot up everything although remarkably only wounded a couple of officers. The results could have been much much worse.

[GrillKing]

I hope they don't encounter a situation like the Bank of America shootout in N. Hollywood.

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).

[gthaustex]

I hope they don't encounter a situation like the Bank of America shootout in N. Hollywood.

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).

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.

[SQLGeek]

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.

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.