Quote Originally Posted by Ronin13 View Post
Except to meet the threat that is out there... IE: Criminals don't obey laws, and can be- through breaking said laws- better equipped than you and I. Thus, it's only just that those entrusted with maintaining order and public safety are equipped well enough to meet that threat. Nevermind on where an individual LEO stands- or much less their politically appointed Chief (not like Sheriffs who actually do have to be elected). It's based on given the right tools for the job.
Except the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizens (IE: you and I). See Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Ergo, I'm responsible for my own safety. So I should be able to be well enough equipped to meet that threat.

Companies that refuse to sell to LEOs in ban states are doing their part to bypass the "I got mine so who cares about the new bans" attitude.

If more LEOs were outspokenly against maybe we wouldn't be fighting to get back our children's rights to be as well equipped as the threats they might face.