Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_eldritch_bitch t1_jdzs2ew wrote

Is a patrol rifle the same as an assault rifle?

38

Hoosac_Love OP t1_jdzuoa5 wrote

An assault rifle is more of an adjective than a noun but yes in general they are using .223/5.6mm AR rifles which in our hands would be called assault weapons.

These terms are more adjective than noun

43

The_eldritch_bitch t1_jdzzljw wrote

I should have added an /s tag. It’s a post-ban, fully-auto, large capacity, patrol-assault rifle if we want to add all the MA qualifiers.

43

Hoosac_Love OP t1_je009ck wrote

Are police allowed auto burst military style weapons,I thought polive were only allowed high capacity magazine semi-auto's

10

dante662 t1_je08cc3 wrote

Police are "allowed" any firearm sold in the USA or fielded by the military. While technically giving a machine gun to a poorly trained cop is a bad idea, there's no law against it.

​

Any police officer can buy any firearm they want. Technically it needs to be "for work" but many get them for personal reasons.

​

There's been a few cops arrested/fired for abusing this ability and re-selling those same firearms on the private market. Because, for example, a modern Glock pistol cannot be transferred to a buyer in the state of Massachusetts by a gun store (FFL holder). But, you can sell one in a private sale. Welcome to loopholesville, because police can buy all the glock pistols they want and then resell them that a tidy profit (due to the soft ban in this state, Glock pistols and other restricted firearms sell for extremely high markups on the secondary market).

20

Hoosac_Love OP t1_je094go wrote

Wow,never knew that ,I always wondered why Jurek Brothers sporting goods in Greenfield had a police only back room ,I guess there is the answer .

8

DeadassBdeadassB t1_je2twpc wrote

Just fyi there isn’t really a soft ban on most Glocks now, there was quite a few on the approved roster last I checked

1

Joeldiaz1995 t1_je37eqg wrote

The Approved Firearms Roster is just one hurdle that a handgun has to jump in order to be sold in MA. The other is the AG’s “consumer protection” regulations. (940 CMR 16). The AGO asserts that Glocks don’t meet these regulations, so even though they’re on the roster dealers can’t sell them. So there is most definitely still a soft ban on most Glocks in place.

3

DeadassBdeadassB t1_je3cm83 wrote

Well that’s just dumb😂 why have a roster if it means nothing. MA laws are so stupid

1

SheeEttin t1_je5fqtz wrote

This is what happens when you legislate without understanding what you're legislating.

2

The_eldritch_bitch t1_je011y7 wrote

Idk, don’t they have m16s which are fully auto?

4

GARGLE_TAINT_SWEAT t1_je01p9d wrote

That actually depends on the M16. M16A1 and M16A3 are the full auto variants. A2/A4 are safe-semi-burst. I imagine that most cops have either A4s or M4s which are also largely safe-semi-burst.

5

Hoosac_Love OP t1_je02vwu wrote

The M4 Carbine just just a lighter weight shorter barrel M16 Same 223 5.6 mm round

5

DeadassBdeadassB t1_je2trx6 wrote

Most police stations have a few full autos kicking around. Mostly for swat teams and shit

2

DillonD t1_je1mzki wrote

What defines an “assault weapon” is really nonsense. Having a certain grip or magazine size? Really isn’t a way to categorize weapons

5

Hoosac_Love OP t1_je1on87 wrote

And also what is wrong with an assault weapon if used for ethical and lawful purposes.For military,police or civilian self defense or hunting small game even.

A garat wire is deadly if used with nefarious intent.

3

[deleted] t1_je0bat1 wrote

Yes. Cops in US have military gear its insane.

11

DeadassBdeadassB t1_je2u5vf wrote

Nah, the cops stuff is way nicer😂 “military grade” means the cheapest crap at the lowest price

1

somegridplayer t1_je4lizz wrote

You mean like the surplus humvees they drove around once or twice and are now rotting in a back lot because they can't afford to keep them running?

2

ben70 t1_je1hpg4 wrote

The issued rifle would certainly have been in violation of the Mass assault weapons ban, but may also have been further restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which regulates manufacture, sale and ownership of machineguns and short barreled rifles, among other things. Police are exempt from many provisions of the latter, and exempt from the Mass AWB - but it would be extra illegal for non-police to possess such an item.

1

DeadassBdeadassB t1_je2tnrc wrote

No because assault rifles aren’t a real thing. How ever police rifles are the closest thing to what liberals think assault rifles are. Most have full auto capabilities.

1

MXC-GuyLedouche t1_je31f8q wrote

In this instance it is a custom M4 built for Airport scenarios. Ranged scope/probably grips for ranged shooting and bullets designed to pierce plane windows.

Not sure if it has full auto but no one shoots carbines like that spray and pray style anyways. "Patrol" rifle just makes it sound like less of an oppressive death stick, as the whole assault rifle thing is just a shitty use of an adjective to sway opinions. For example AR-15 is a specific brand model like mountain dew code red not assault rifle 15 and half the articles that mention them are actually talking about different guns.

Education creates safer gun users and will lead to laws that actually create safer places.

Banning bump stocks then not getting cops in trouble who leave their guns unlocked accomplishes nothing.

0

mattgm1995 t1_jdzv7rg wrote

Lol. And here’s the problem with people in our state. No one even knows what an AR is but they want to ban it. The current AWB is clearly written by someone with no understanding of guns.

−16

Clamgravy t1_jdzz8b2 wrote

AnD hErE'S tHe PrObLeM wItH pEoPlE iN oUr StAtE

18

Coerced_onto_reddit t1_je01kay wrote

I’m not pro or anti gun - I definitely think there needs to be more effective regulation - but one thing that I see often is a dismissal of a comment like this guy’s. Something like “people writing the legislation obviously don’t know anything about guns!”

If some time is taken to gain education about the weapons and their characteristics, it would probably make it easier to draft more specific (and hopefully effective) legislation. It would also take away the “you don’t know anything about guns!” Defense used by a lot of pro gun people/groups whenever this conversation inevitably rears its ugly head again

15

TzarKazm t1_je02adk wrote

Yea I have had thus conversation more than once with my MIL. "They should ban assault weapons. " "ok, what does that mean?" "You know, the assault ones."

I don't own any guns so I don't have any skin in the game, but it's tough to have a productive discussion when one person has no idea what they even want.

10

mattgm1995 t1_je03mp8 wrote

They don’t! My point is they ban “assault weapons” but you can still buy a SCAR in MA, you can still by an AR15 in MA, you can still get large capacity mags as long as they were made before 1994 in MA. It’s not dismissive, im saying lawmakers legitimately do not understand. The laws do literally nothing!

9

DarthT15 t1_je0uqvx wrote

>The laws do literally nothing!

Laws are nothing but opinions with the backing of jackbooted thugs

4

mattgm1995 t1_je03utr wrote

You can mock me and downvote me if you want, but hear me out. They don’t! My point we already have an “assault weapons ban” in MA, but you can still buy a SCAR in MA, you can still by an AR15 in MA, you can still get large capacity mags as long as they were made before 1994 in MA (they’re only $40) It’s not a dismissive comment, im saying lawmakers legitimately do not understand. The laws do literally nothing!

4

jp_jellyroll t1_je0d60n wrote

>The laws do literally nothing!

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The gun laws aren't perfect. We get that. But there is a direct correlation between gun laws, gun ownership, and death by guns. If there are more guns available, if it's easier to get those guns, then there are more people dying by those guns.

MA has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country.

It's just like smoking laws. If you make cigs cheap, easy to get, no ID, allow smoking everywhere... then more people will smoke and subsequently die from lung cancer. Even people who don't smoke will die. If you ban cigs, tax them, ban indoor smoking, etc, then fewer people will smoke and, thus, fewer people will die from lung cancer.

−2

mattgm1995 t1_je0ezag wrote

I didn’t say throw them out! Lol taking words completely out of context. All I’m saying is it would do the public and our legislators a good service to better educate themselves.

Also counterpoint: NH has almost no gun laws and the lowest rate of gun crime in the nation. Correlation ≠ causation

4

brufleth t1_je0u9xf wrote

> NH has almost no gun laws

That's rich coming from someone saying we all need to be better educated on guns. NH has many many gun laws.

−2

mattgm1995 t1_je0y4ei wrote

Relative to MA? Which the discussion is focused on? Very few

2

willis936 t1_je1u734 wrote

Name em. I have friends in NH with multiple AR15 platforms with high capacity magazines and silencers.

Constitutional carry, no permits, castle doctrine, state preemption of municipal restrictions. NH gun laws are primarily protections rather than restrictions.

1