LEOs and Pistol Permit, NY


PDA






KrayzieVanh
September 22, 2007, 11:20 AM
I recently moved up to NY (Broome County) and started work for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). We are considered LEOs and fall under LEOSA.

I was wondering if there was special consideration given to LEOs or do we still have to wait the 4-9 months, pay the outrageous fees, do all the fingerprinting again that I've been reading about in order to get a permit to purchase (I'm going to apply for CCW too).

This may be the deciding factor on if I should move to PA or not.

If you enjoyed reading about "LEOs and Pistol Permit, NY" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
USMC6177
September 22, 2007, 12:28 PM
I was wondering if there was special consideration given to LEOs or do we still have to wait the 4-9 months, pay the outrageous fees, do all the fingerprinting again that I've been reading about in order to get a permit to purchase (I'm going to apply for CCW too).

I would be upset if you didn't get treated the same as me, the "regular" citizen.

CNYCacher
September 22, 2007, 01:09 PM
Negative ghostrider, the pattern is full.

You will have to wait like the commoners.

I've been reading about in order to get a permit to purchase (I'm going to apply for CCW too).
CCW is the only permit they make, which is a prerequisite for purchase. It's just called a "Handgun License". There is not seperate permits for purchase and for carry. They are the same.

Go down to the Broome co. Sheriff's dept, ask for the "handgun license application" to get the ball rolling.

KrayzieVanh
September 22, 2007, 04:30 PM
Wow, thats crazy. Kinda wishing I was in NC right now. Five minutes and five dollars at a gun show would of been all I needed. I guess I'll have to research some PA counties to see if they are more "proactive" with their permits. It's all good as they say.

KrayzieVanh
September 22, 2007, 04:39 PM
I would be upset if you didn't get treated the same as me, the "regular" citizen.

First off, Oorah! Brother!

Second, as a LEO our application for the position included 20 stacks of paperwork, a security interviews, a couple fingerprints, physical examination, urinalysis AND the waiting period. The only thing that wasn't included was a fee.

Still isn't good enough I guess... hahaha!

Rugerman99
September 22, 2007, 05:20 PM
Hi and welcome,
As one of those commoners of Broom county I would be upset if you were given special treatment while I do have to pay those outrageous fees. Not trying to pick a fight but do you acuttly believe that police should be allowed more freedom then the rest of us? I can see why you would be waived from the paper work seeing as how you've already been qualified to own a pistol but I see no reason why you shouldn't have to pay the same fees.

KrayzieVanh
September 22, 2007, 05:56 PM
No, I'm not complaining about the fees. If I were I wouldn't want to purchase a handgun in the first place.

I can't see why you guys wouldn't think that LEOs shouldn't get special treatment. I mean it's insane. The people that LEOs arrest, they criminals that they keep locked up in their cells. I guess it's OK to put us in the same boats as people that don't deal with criminals right? How many of you have worried because you locked up a gang member or found a shank in his cell and now he has no privileges? I guess you think I want to carry a gun around because it COOL!

I've heard stories on how some LEOs in some areas of US can go apply for a permit and will get it approved on the spot.

I mean at least we could get our paperwork in front of the queue so that it'll get approved faster. As LEOs we are more prone to violence. I've just read last week that a correctional officer was shot at on his front porch by an inmate that was once at his facility. Luckily he had his pistol on him and killed the guy. I don't just have myself to protect, I have my wife and kid. That just annoys me that I have to wait close to a year before I can protect myself and my family. I can't lug my 12GA around with me everywhere- you know?

Spreadfire Arms
September 22, 2007, 06:07 PM
i hear it is a long and difficult process to get a NY State Carry Permit, but the sooner you start, the sooner you'll get it. also, you probably have a higher likelihood in being successful vs. a non-LEO since you can probably justify the fear for your safety more than someone who doesn't have to deal with criminals on a daily basis. not that your life is worth more or less than a non-LEO (let's not get down that rabbit hole), but the bottom line is that the people processing the paperwork will probably rubber-stamp a LEO's paperwork and give more scrutiny to someone who isn't a LEO.

that being said, you may as well start the paperwork process. why? because maybe one day you won't be a LEO. it may be because you get an OJI or something else happens in your life where you no longer want to be a LEO. at least you can still carry under your citizen carry permit. i know alot of cops who have the civilian carry permits for their home state (or have an out of state permit with reciprocity) in the event that they suddenly get out of law enforcement, they can still carry their gun. the crooks that you are worried about harming you just dont stop because all of a sudden one day you decide to just hang your hat.

good luck and just go through with it like the rest of the other citizens. you may get an "expedited" process, but if you don't, then don't worry. you are still lawfully carrying, so what is the big deal if you have to wait on your civilian permit? you don't need your paperwork to be put at the top of the stack in front of all of the other guys who can't carry in the interim. that's not cool.

in the meantime, if you really need to buy something, you should be able to have the firearm shipped directly to the agency with a department letterhead stating it is for official use.....

MilsurpShooter
September 22, 2007, 06:50 PM
I can't see why you guys wouldn't think that LEOs shouldn't get special treatment.

Because they took the job knowing it's risks just like others did when they picked their jobs. Not trying to start anything, but that's just my view on it. I've been employed in the private security industry since 2003. I've been involved in many, many conflicts regarding employee termination. I've performed investigations that have resulted in employees being terminated with loss of benefits/pension and resulted in personal threats against me. I've performed security at events that have resulted in me being threatened, stabbed and shot at. I've applied for a un-restricted carry citing my job requires me to travel to questionable locations and my life has been in danger more then once. Unfortunately, due to the fact that one of my references moved from New York to another state in the 4 months it took my permit to come under review, I was denied. LEO's getting preferential treatment, when I, Joe Commoner, who will be taking the December Police Exam, can not get the same priviledges or the same basic priviledge given to us by the 2nd ammendment, is not something I like thinking about.

davhina
September 22, 2007, 07:36 PM
I guess it's OK to put us in the same boats as people that don't deal with criminals right?
Yes it is. We all have to deal with criminals, even if it is to a lesser degree on a daily basis. Why should we civilians not have an equal opportunity to defend/protect ourselves?

PennsyPlinker
September 22, 2007, 08:26 PM
A couple of months ago two NY LEOs (State Police) were at my place here in PA for instruction not gun related. They both told me they were refused CCW permits, being told if they wanted to carry, then they needed to carry their badges as well.

Noxx
September 22, 2007, 08:33 PM
I can't see why you guys wouldn't think that LEOs shouldn't get special treatment.

Because we are not a military nation. You are not an "uber" social class by dint of your occupation. Because we are not ruled by, nor beholden to, a quasi-military elite. Because the guardians must abide by the rules they enforce.

That about covers it.

Powderman
September 22, 2007, 08:45 PM
I can't see why you guys wouldn't think that LEOs shouldn't get special treatment. I mean it's insane. The people that LEOs arrest, they criminals that they keep locked up in their cells. I guess it's OK to put us in the same boats as people that don't deal with criminals right? How many of you have worried because you locked up a gang member or found a shank in his cell and now he has no privileges? I guess you think I want to carry a gun around because it COOL!

I've heard stories on how some LEOs in some areas of US can go apply for a permit and will get it approved on the spot.

I mean at least we could get our paperwork in front of the queue so that it'll get approved faster. As LEOs we are more prone to violence. I've just read last week that a correctional officer was shot at on his front porch by an inmate that was once at his facility. Luckily he had his pistol on him and killed the guy. I don't just have myself to protect, I have my wife and kid. That just annoys me that I have to wait close to a year before I can protect myself and my family. I can't lug my 12GA around with me everywhere- you know?

First of all, from one LEO to another, welcome to THR.

Second, bro, you kicked over a can of worms with this post!!! You'll see what I mean shortly. If there is any question concerning the general feeling around here about LEO's in general, read my sig line.

Stay safe!

dust_101
September 22, 2007, 08:54 PM
Regardless of LEO vs Joe Average, you picked the wrong state to move to in order to have an easy time purchasing, carrying, or keeping firearms. If you get the CCW permit, then yes you can purchase handguns, if for any reason (and I do mean ANY) the Judge who signs your permit decides you can't have the permit anymore *yoink* there you stand as criminal as any of the folks in jail having a handgun in NY State.

Think you'll get by with a rifle? Oh just wait, if the new 'assault weapon ban' kicks off here, then any semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine will be illegal.

You may want to pull up and get to another state, this place is highly red above NYC but they still run the politics around here, and Albany is no real help.

Good luck.

Noxx
September 22, 2007, 09:03 PM
Powder I often appreciate your posts but I don't feel like it's "LEO bashing" to suggest that those who protect and serve also obey.

KrayzieVanh
September 22, 2007, 10:10 PM
Because they took the job knowing it's risks just like others did when they picked their jobs.

I know what I was going to risk, but gosh darn- couldn't this Country help people out that's protecting it? You're just taking the exam? So that mean your not even a sworn officer yet. How could you compare someone taking the exam to an already sworn officer? We'll if and when you pass you'd understand enough on why you'll need a weapon more than the other guy. I just hope the criminal your arresting/locking up don't spits at you and tells you that he's sending his guys after you and your family.

Why should we civilians not have an equal opportunity to defend/protect ourselves?

Mr. I never said you didn't have a right to carry. All I'm saying is that our consideration should come first. That's probably why I'm not the President huh'?

Hmm, think of it like this. If your at a hospital with a heart attack you wouldn't want the doctor putting you in line, making you wait, while he's taking care of all the folks that need Viagra first. Would you?

A couple of months ago two NY LEOs (State Police) were at my place here in PA for instruction not gun related. They both told me they were refused CCW permits, being told if they wanted to carry, then they needed to carry their badges as well.

Wow, that's insane. Without a permit they can't even purchase. Your from PA, are they more LEO friendly?

First of all, from one LEO to another, welcome to THR.

Yea, thanks! There a lot of information and knowledgeable people here. I guess it's just not LEO friendly. Hahahaha!


Emmm... I had no idea what Noxx said... maybe thats why I join the Marines and got out to work for the BOP. Hahaha...

I'll have to research more concerning the county. I wished I knew more people that way the networking could be there. I'll call them Monday and will let everyone know (so everyone could tell me "I told you so!"). I'll also be researching about PA to see if they are more LEO friendly.

EmGeeGeorge
September 22, 2007, 10:14 PM
I was looking at this the other day(the official site at least)
Basically, if you read the text, BOP Corr Officers fall under this.... so you can carry w/o a permit so long as your employer allows it...
I looked it up as my new job is a Limited Commission Sworn LE, but not Police Officer....(Custody w/ a PD) I can now carry w/o a permit.... pretty much anywhere in the US.... (still have, and will keep my permit current though)
Now, I like guns, some LE don't.... they view them as tools... but after some time out there they realze that many of the wonderful folks they have to deal with in their employ get out after very short period of time, relative to the bad things they sometimes do, and may carry grudges... It keeps states and localities from limiting an officers right to self defense.... (like NYC for instance, that has prevented off duty le not from NYC from carrying, but not no more...)
Now how may of you "angry that LE get special benefits" have to deal with felons, thugs, and other assorted a-holes on a daily basis and then say go to the movies or store with kids in tow, or the wife, or just to the park, and maybe see these wonderful people?
Anyhow, the background check that most LE have to submit to pretty much beats any nics check hands down....
Now at my old corrections job, we weren't covered under leosa, if you really looked at the parameters of the bill(they viewed us as regular employees, now try doing corrections where use of force may be required, but legally you can be held up on such uses in court once someone wised up)....one of the reasons I left there.... besides the poor work environ, bad "command climate", and so on...
I like guns, I think people should have an unlimited right to self defense, in the appropriate circumstances... (life or health in danger, etc) What I don't like is the consistently anti-le tone on the board.... What people don't realize is the LEOSA may be used to set precedent for national carry.... look at the parameters, specifically about the training requ...

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons -- the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcment officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.

The LEOSA was considered during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 22, 2004 as Public Law 108-447. It is codified as 18 U.S. Code 926B (qualified law enforcement officers) and 926C (qualified retired law enforcement officers).


President George W. Bush signs the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, June 22, 2004.Contents [hide]
1 Scope of privilege conferred by the law
2 Requirements to be covered by the law
3 Application to agency internal policies
4 Application to employees of federal agencies
5 References



[edit] Scope of privilege conferred by the law
If a person is covered by the LEOSA, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof," he or she may carry a concealed firearm in any state, or in the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. Thus, the LEOSA-qualified person does not generally require a state-issued permit for carrying concealed weapons.

However, there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.

The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.

Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the defintions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.


[edit] Requirements to be covered by the law
In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer," a person must meet each and every one of the following criteria: He or she must be (1) "an employee of a governmental agency"; (2) "is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law"; (3) has "statutory powers of arrest"; (4) "is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm"; (5) "is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency"; (6) "meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm"; and (7) "is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm." In addition, the privilege conferred by the law applies only when the individual "is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance."

In order to exercise the privilege, the LEOSA-qualified individual must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."

In order to be considered a "qualified retired law enforcment officer," one must be a person who "(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability; (2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest; (3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or (B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency; (4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency; (5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms . . ."

Even if the retiree does qualify under each numbered requirement quoted above, he must possess one of two types of permissible identification: Either "(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm;" OR "(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and (B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm."

In all other respects, the provisions of the law that apply to a "qualified retired law enforcement officer" are the same as those for a "qualified law enforcement officer" (e.g., no carrying while intoxicated, etc.).


[edit] Application to agency internal policies
In enacting the LEOSA, Congress overrode the authority of any state or local government to deny LEOSA-qualified individuals, from any jurisdiction, the right to carry concealed firearms. However, there has been some debate over whether the heads of individual law enforcement agencies -- for example, a local police chief or county sheriff -- may order his own agency's employees not to exercise the right conferred by Congress.

It appears that most authorities believe that federal law now trumps the local chief's authority in this regard. The heads of state and local law enforcement agencies derive their authority from state and local law, and the LEOSA explicitly overrides "any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision. . ." (However, an agency can forbid an employee from carrying a specific weapon that is the property of the agency.)

A memo posted by the California Attorney General's office notes that the federal law overrides any local or agency internal policy regarding off-duty carry. The memo posed this question: "Does this Act trump state law, local ordinances, and local policy restricting carrying off-duty?," and gave this answer: "Yes, as it relates to an officerís ability to carry a concealed weapon off-duty... Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded [sic] by this Act." [1]

Moreover, during the congressional debates over the bill, both the authors of the bill and the opponents agreed that the legislation was intended precisely to confer on qualified officers the right to carry concealed in every state, regardless of any local laws or agency policies to the contrary. The most complete debate on the bill, including consideration of various amendments, occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on June 16, 2004. The committee's report includes a transcript of the complete debate. A leading opponent of the LEOSA, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), complained that the bill "supersedes the ability of the chief of police to control his own officers. . . . If he should want to decide to prohibit his own officers from carrying concealed weapons when they are off duty, this bill will override his power over his own police officers.. . ." Scott then offered an amendment to add to the bill a restriction that it "shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency." Scott explained that his amendment was necessary "so that the police chief can say no firearms in bars, no firearms when you are off duty, and that would be a decision that the police chief could make about his force. The bill overrides that. . . . The bill clearly prohibits the chief of police from prohibiting his officer going on vacation with a firearm. And . . .this is not just police and sheriff, that is anybody with arresting powers, game and fisheries, probation and parole officers, and everybody else." Scott concluded by arguing that unless his amendment was adopted, "they [the chiefs, et al] will have no say over what officers do off duty with their own guns." Several other Democratic members of the committee spoke up in support of Scott's Amendment. But the authors, sponsors, and supporters of the LEOSA uniformly opposed the Scott amendment. The bill supporters did not dispute Scott's interpretation of what the bill did -- rather, they argued that adoption of the Scott amendment would amount to a "back door opt-out" of the basic requirements of the legislation, defeating its purpose -- and they voted down the Scott amendment, 21 to 11. After the amendment process was completed, the final bill was approved 23 to 9. (No further amendments were adopted at any point in the entire legislative process in Congress.)

Six of the committee members who voted "no" on approval of the bill filed "dissenting views" in which they explained WHY they opposed the bill, including this reason: "Section 2 of the bill provides that regardless of 'any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,' any individual who qualifies as a law enforcement officer and who carries photo identification will be authorized to carry any firearm. In a variety of contexts, including the Federal preemption of State law, courts have interpreted the term 'law' to include agency rules and regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled that this term specifically includes contractual obligations between employers and employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices promulgated by State and local police departments. See Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchersí Assoc., 499 U.S. 117 (1991)."[2] (The Supreme Court decided the "Norfolk" case on a 7-2 vote.)

Nevertheless, some local agencies continue to assert that they have the legal right to instruct their own officers not to exercise the privilege conferred by Congress though enactment of the LEOSA.[3]


[edit] Application to employees of federal agencies
According to a January 31, 2005 memorandum from the Attorney General of the United States, certain employees of some branches of the federal Justice Department are among those covered by the LEOSA. The memo said: "The [Justice] Department considers the following components to be agencies whose current employees may qualify as LEOs for purposes of the Act: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the Office of the Inspector General; and the United States Marshals Service. Of course, any particular employee of one of these components independently must meet each of the specified statutory qualifications to qualify as an LEO under the Act."[4]

(In addition, there are other federal laws that empower those who are actively employed in federal law enforcement activities, such as FBI and ATF agents, to carry concealed firearms in all jurisdictions.)

The attorney general's memo also stated, "The [Justice] Department considers the following components to be agencies whose retired employees may qualify as LEOs for purposes of the Act: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Federal Bureau of Prisons; the Office of Inspector General, insofar as the retiree exercised statutory law enforcement authority at the time of his retirement; and the United States Marshals Service. As with current employees, any particular retired employee of one of these components independently must meet each of the specified statutory qualifications to qualify as a retired LEO under the Act."

As noted above, the LEOSA confers a limited immunity to state and local laws dealing with concealed firearms, but no immunity to any other federal laws or federal agency policies.


[edit] References
^ Memorandum by California attorney general's office regarding LEOSA
^ Report to accompany H.R. 218, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Report 108-560, June 22, 2004
^ "Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004", by Craig E. Ferrell Jr., The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 10, October 2004.
^ Memorandum from the Attorney General, "Guidance on the application of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 to current and retired Department of Justice law enforcement officers," January 31, 2005.
Retrieved

Noxx
September 22, 2007, 10:17 PM
Mr. I never said you didn't have a right to carry. All I'm saying is that our consideration should come first. That's probably why I'm not the President huh'?

Probably.

Noxx
September 22, 2007, 10:18 PM
Deleted, lag.

KrayzieVanh
September 22, 2007, 10:21 PM
.... so you can carry w/o a permit so long as your employer allows it...

Well I can't purchase without a permit. Hehe!

Noxx
September 22, 2007, 10:23 PM
Well I can't purchase without a permit. Hehe!

Well that's just new york craziness right there. I mean, I live in California, the land of the anti-gunner, and I don't need to ask if I can buy a gun. That's gotta be a real PITA.

RevolvingCylinder
September 22, 2007, 10:37 PM
I have a job where apprehension duties and carrying a sidearm and the enforcement of laws are part of the job and I have to abide by far more laws that you do and I'm not a civilian. But I was never allowed to carry off-duty in the state nor could I get approved for a carry permit like civilian police do. I also have a spotless record and security clearances and yet I can't be trusted in NYS to legally protect myself.

Powderman and KrayzieVanh, why can't I get special treatment like you civilians expect?

Powderman
September 22, 2007, 10:42 PM
I never mentioned a thing about special privileges.

And I don't think that KV is asking for any either. I believe that he wants to know why, after the selection process and background investigations he has to go through, he still has to stand in line and wait for a permit.

Me? Hey, I got mine like anyone else in WA State...fill out the application at the PD, pay the fee, and wait for about three weeks. Done deal.

RevolvingCylinder
September 22, 2007, 10:55 PM
I think KV should just be given his permit just as anyone else in the state that has a clean background. As I have stated, I too have gone through stringent background checks(security clearances) and it didn't ever get me a permit.

As has been stated, he doesn't "need" the permit as he can carry off duty IAW department regulations. NYS is a funny animal and I know since I've lived there. And being allowed to legally purchase or possess a pistol in one's home is a special privilege in NYS that isn't even granted to regular Joe's with spotless records in some counties. A permit to carry concealed is a very special privilege in the state that is only guaranteed to those connected to the corrupt government officials that run the state. To everyone else it is either difficult(for the fortunate) or impossible(for most).

Noxx
September 22, 2007, 10:58 PM
I never mentioned a thing about special privileges.And I don't think that KV is asking for any either.

That's exactly what he's asking for, to be considered ahead of the serfs.

All I'm saying is that our consideration should come first

There's two issues there. The first and foremost being that obviously NOBODY should be put through all this nonsense to purchase and carry a weapon. I think we can all agree on that.

Where we don't agree, is on the idea that one citizen should come before another based on their occupation. Not only is it disingenuous to suggest that one mans life is "more" worth defending than anothers, it's blatantly dangerous to suggest that those who are sworn to uphold "the system" as it were are worthy of special consideration, that they are in fact a superior and privileged class of people.

Some animals are more equal than others, in other words.

RevolvingCylinder
September 22, 2007, 11:03 PM
KV, if your right to keep and bear arms is important to you go to PA. PA is a nice state with a similar climate and beautiful countryside of upstate NY but with far fewer kooky laws.

MilsurpShooter
September 22, 2007, 11:34 PM
How could you compare someone taking the exam to an already sworn officer? We'll if and when you pass you'd understand enough on why you'll need a weapon more than the other guy. I just hope the criminal your arresting/locking up don't spits at you and tells you that he's sending his guys after you and your family.

Perhaps if you had read further down into my post where I outlined my current job, particularly the, what I thought, relevant part?

I've been employed in the private security industry since 2003. I've been involved in many, many conflicts regarding employee termination. I've performed investigations that have resulted in employees being terminated with loss of benefits/pension and resulted in personal threats against me. I've performed security at events that have resulted in me being threatened, stabbed and shot at. I've applied for a un-restricted carry citing my job requires me to travel to questionable locations and my life has been in danger more then once.

TonyB
September 23, 2007, 10:19 AM
There are gun stores around here that do give a discount to LEO's w/ the showing of a badge.Other than that,I think we're all in the same boat.

kermit315
September 23, 2007, 11:05 AM
+1 what Noxx said

If you enjoyed reading about "LEOs and Pistol Permit, NY" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!