Incoming Boston mayor, police clash over AR-15 proposal

[Rapunzel]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/30/incoming-boston-mayor-police-clash-over-ar-15-proposal/

Incoming Boston mayor, police clash over AR-15 proposal
Published December 30, 2013

Boston police are clashing with the city's incoming mayor over a proposal to arm some officers with AR-15 rifles.

Mayor-elect Martin Walsh came out against the plan over the weekend. The Boston Police Department had been pushing for a limited number of officers to carry the high-powered rifles, in light of recent mass shootings as well as the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year.

But after the incoming mayor initially stayed mum on the idea, a spokeswoman for Walsh said he's not on board -- not yet, anyway.

"Mayor-elect Walsh is opposed to the AR-15 rifles," spokeswoman Kathryn Norton told FoxNews.com in an email. "Unless otherwise convinced by the Boston Police Department, he does not think they are necessary."

Police officials had pushed for the rifle purchases in response to mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Conn. The Boston Marathon bombing happened after the plan was already in the works but nevertheless fueled the proposal.

One unnamed officer told the Boston Herald, which first reported Walsh's stance on the issue, that "it gives you at least a fighting chance if you go into something where suspects have more firepower than you."

Under the plan, according to MyFoxBoston.com, the city would buy 33 AR-15 rifles, at $2,500 apiece. They would go to two trained officers in all 11 districts of Boston.

But the plan needs the mayor's sign-off, and a number of critics had spoken out against the idea, questioning whether giving officers such rifles would increase the chances of innocent people getting shot.

"I don't believe arming them with assault weapons is going to make them any safer," City Councilor Charles Yancey said, according to MyFoxBoston.com.

[Chieftain]

Boston police have no business whatsoever with AR-15s.

Saiga's .308 would be a much better choice.....

[andy58-in-nh]

AR-15's are not "assault weapons", insofar as that term has any true meaning, other than as a useful pejorative for gun-grabbers. It is a civilian semi-automatic rifle, bearing a far less powerful round (5.56mm/.223 cal) than what some of our criminal class members currently carry, owing to their puzzling refusal to respect gun laws that somehow only constrain the law-abiding.

And also: my hunting rifle (a Browning A-Bolt chambered in .270 cal) is far more "high-powered" by any measurable standard than an AR-15 (a couple of which I also possess).

That said, I would think that your average street cop does not require such a weapon, but certainly ought to train with one, just in case. For most purposes, they'd do better with a 9mm or 40cal. pistol with night sights and high-capacity mags. For tactical purposes (SWAT) in close quarter combat situations, a full-auto M4/A3 variant would be preferable, given proper training. In fact, I think they'd benefit from more training, period.

[Fishrrman]

[[ Boston police have no business whatsoever with AR-15s. ]]

Total agreement.

NO police officers in America - NONE - should be carrying AR-15's on duty (on their person).

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be trained on them.
They should.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to a rifle for a backup -- as in "stored in the police cruiser".
They should.

But American police officers should not be equipped "as soldiers" in the normal course of duty.

Our forefathers instituted Posse Comitatus for a reason.

A free people need not be, and must not be "policed" by soldiers armed with military weapons.

(And yes, I know the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16)