Hr 218


PDA






444
June 17, 2004, 02:46 PM
House panel approves gun bill for officers

By Brian A. DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The House Judiciary Committee yesterday passed a bill that allows
active-duty and retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons
anywhere in the country.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act heads to the floor of the House
for a final vote before going to the Senate, where a similar bill passed
as an amendment in March by a 91-8 vote. The bill permits "qualified"
law-enforcement officers - retired, off duty and outside their jurisdiction
- to carry a concealed weapon in any state regardless of the state's law.
It passed on a 23-9 vote.

The provision drew the ire of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Wisconsin Republican and committee chairman.
"I believe it violates the principles of federalism and undermines the
authorities of the states," said Mr. Sensenbrenner, the only Republican who
did not support the bill.
Mr. Sensenbrenner amended the legislation before voting no on the final
bill. His amendment requires officers to have an official badge when
carrying a concealed weapon, as well as a photographic identification and
valid state certification.
Rep. Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, also successfully attached an
amendment that prohibits officers from being under the influence of alcohol
or narcotics while carrying a gun.
Mr. Scott made several attempts to amend the bill before joining the
majority of Democrats in opposing it.
Although 34 states have no restrictions on law-abiding citizens
carrying concealed handguns, 16 states and the District do.
Democrat Reps. Melvin Watt of North Carolina and Bill Delahunt of
Massachusetts argued that Congress was enacting tyranny against the states.
"I can't believe we would consider a bill that starts out with
'Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State.' I mean, it
is clear this violates our Constitution," Mr. Watt said.
But Mr. Scott was more concerned about a jurisdiction's legal liability
if one of its residents is shot by an out-of-state officer. He said
another problem is that the bill will undercut police chiefs' authority
over their officers' weapons.
"This bill not only supersedes the police chiefs' ability to determine
what is coming into their jurisdiction, it overrides his authority over his
own officers," Mr. Scott said.
Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, said the law requires much in
the way of trust of the officers. She also hinted that the law could lead
to more acts of police brutality by private citizens with badges.
"You're setting up police officers to get into all sorts of trouble and
jurisdictions to be subject to all forms of liability," Mrs. Waters said.
Serious misconduct by concealed-weapon permit holders is rare, says the
National Center for Policy Analysis, a public-policy research organization.
The center said in a 2001 study that, in most states, fewer than 1
percent of holders of concealed-and-carry licenses commit gun crimes.
Out of the 215,582 concealed licensees in Texas, 178 were stripped of
their permits because of felony convictions since 1996, study figures
show. Three have gone to jail for murder or attempted murder.
In Florida, where the state issued more than 72,000 licenses in 2000,
it revoked 241; among Utah's 40,000 licensees, five lost privileges because
of a conviction for murder or attempted murder. Indiana canceled 921
licenses in 2000, out of 350,000 permits issued there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hr 218" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GEM
June 17, 2004, 03:13 PM
I originally didn't like the idea because of the differential between LEOs and regular citizens. I've heard all the arguments.

I now support the idea as it is a good test of Bush's mettle on gun issues. Would he sign it if it gets to him? Given his lack of proactive measures for the RKBA, this might put him to the test.

I guarantee that the powers that be will manage to keep this somewhere until after the election. Cynical old me.

If it got to the Senate, the AWB renewal would get attached to it by the anti dems and rinos. So it would get trashed.

Mr. Kook
June 17, 2004, 03:29 PM
You know I wonder if a person who applies for a LEO position, does the job and then quites would be allowed nationwide concealed carry.

Just a thought.

DMF
June 17, 2004, 03:39 PM
You know I wonder if a person who applies for a LEO position, does the job and then quites would be allowed nationwide concealed carry. I haven't seen the latest wording of the bill, but IIRC the person must retire to qualify. That usually means 20 -30 years of service. Not just get hired, quite three months later and be covered under this bill.

I support it because I believe it's a small victory for gun-rights, and a logical first step toward nationwide CCW for all.

For full disclosure I'm a LEO, but I'm a fed so I already have nationwide CCW, and I won't retire for a couple of decades.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 17, 2004, 03:46 PM
I think Sensenbrenner is right.

pittspilot
June 17, 2004, 03:48 PM
"Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, said the law requires much in
the way of trust of the officers. She also hinted that the law could lead
to more acts of police brutality by private citizens with badges.
"You're setting up police officers to get into all sorts of trouble and
jurisdictions to be subject to all forms of liability," Mrs. Waters said."

How does someone this dumb get elected to Congress? That's my question.

Justin
June 17, 2004, 06:37 PM
How does someone this dumb get elected to Congress? That's my question. Well, where else would you expect someone to go who doesn't have the skills to hack it in the private sector?

R.H. Lee
June 17, 2004, 06:40 PM
The more armed Americans, the better, IMHO.

Frohickey
June 17, 2004, 08:28 PM
I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner on this one.

LEAA has been trying to get this off the ground, and while the motives are honorable, the way it is doing it is not.
I think that this should not pass as written.

Lone_Gunman
June 17, 2004, 08:40 PM
I now support the idea as it is a good test of Bush's mettle on gun issues. Would he sign it if it gets to him?

Bush has so far signed everything that has made it to his desk. He hasn't vetoed anything at all, and I think he will sign this too. It is not a test of his mettle on gun issues at all.

I believe he will sign just about anything Congress sends him. Heck, he thought the Campaign Finance Reform was unconstitutional, and still signed it.

cropcirclewalker
June 17, 2004, 09:11 PM
Perhaps a constitutional scholar could 'splain to me which of the 18 things that congress is empowered to do by article 1 section 8 would be the controlling justification for this piece of horse hockey.

Let's see, raise and support an army? :uhoh:

Ironbarr
June 17, 2004, 10:12 PM
What is the latest? Is it moving? Has it been passed at the 11th hour in a room of three while the rest are out to lunch? Or campaigning? Or serving on some committee elsewhere?

I thought this thread would be an alert medium keeping us informed of any activity.

Am I wrong?

-Andy

Standing Wolf
June 17, 2004, 10:19 PM
I now support the idea as it is a good test of Bush's mettle on gun issues.

A bad law is a bad law is a bad law. Cops don't have more rights than mere commoners. They don't deserve special treatment or privileges.

geegee
June 18, 2004, 12:31 AM
Although not a LEO, I'm a Life Member of LEAA. I have to say that while I do support the notion of having all LEO's having national carry priveleges, it's more because I want national reciprocity for all CHL holders, not just LEO's. I'd feel much better about supporting HR 218 if I knew they were in my corner on this important issue.

I appreciate the position LEAA takes on a law abiding citizen's right to carry (they are strongly in favor), but I can't say I'm assured they'll pursue national reciprocity for citizens like myself after they win their fight. I guess my take on it is that where gun freedoms are concerned, our victories tend to be won incrementally. I don't like it, but that does appear to be the case. :mad:

Jeff White
June 18, 2004, 01:35 AM
Right now, private citizens with CCW permits can carry more places then sworn officers. That's right...while many states offer reciprocity for the holders of CCWs few recognize a peace officer from another state. If they do, it's usually only in a duty status. To my knowledge only Indiana grants peace officers from other states right to carry. So I don't see how this is making peace officers more equal.

Like DMF said, it's an important first step to your CCW being as universally recognized as your drivers license.

Jeff

Lone_Gunman
June 18, 2004, 01:54 AM
Jeff, the answer for the situation you described is for police officers to get a CCW permit for the state they live in.

It should be easy to do unless they live in a state that doesn't give out CCW permits, in which case they need to change state law not federal law.

cropcirclewalker
June 18, 2004, 02:02 AM
Mr. Gunman,

That may be a problem. You are asking that the instruments of the state be subjected to the same requirements that lowly citizens be subjected to. Not good.

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 02:09 AM
Yeah, thats the answer, get a CCW for your state

My CCW, which I had before I became a LEO, and continue to keep amounted to paying a fee, passing a background check and having three people get called by a sheriff, who asked.......is this guy ok. No firearms test, no knowledge of when I can or can not use my firearms......nothing.

Now, to become a LEO I had to pass a background check, pass a physical check, pass a pysch test......undergo countless tests of my knowledge of both civil and criminal law, to include the use of force and deadly force. When I can use it, when I can't. Pass a firearms qualification (yearly or quarterly depending upon your state and/or dept regs) undergo yearly state and department legal updates, etc.....

Which of the above do you think makes me more qualified to carry? And if I have to use my weapon in another state, everything I do will be based upon the fact that I am a LEO, not someone carrying under a CCW.

Now before the crazies come out of the closet and jump all over my posting, I think a CCW......your CCW, my CCW, should be recognized by every state, much like drivers licenses are.

Cybercop
June 18, 2004, 02:25 PM
I think this phrase is the most important::

The provision drew the ire of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Wisconsin Republican and committee chairman.
"I believe it violates the principles of federalism and undermines the
authorities of the states," said Mr. Sensenbrenner, the only Republican who
did not support the bill.

So why does this bill violate states rights and the AWB (extention) dosen't?! I plan to throw this right back in their faces :cuss:

Jim

Lone_Gunman
June 18, 2004, 02:54 PM
Steve in PA,

It sucks that LEO's have to comply with the same laws the rest of us do, doesn't it?

If the law says you need a CCW permit, then you need a CCW permit.

I have a lot of experience fishing. Been doing it all my life. Still, I have to have a license to do it. Too bad, but its just the way it is.

Augustwest
June 18, 2004, 03:02 PM
The only possible good I see in this bill is that it might pave the way for some sort of equal protection case for national CCW.

A thousand pardons to any of the LEO's on this board, but it doesn't matter how many hoops you had to jump through in order to get your badge, you're still citizens, and not, therefore, entitled to any special governmental privileges or freedoms from the infringements of rights.

Diggler
June 18, 2004, 03:21 PM
The only possible good I see in this bill is that it might pave the way for some sort of equal protection case for national CCW.I doubt it.

Nothing against LEOs, but I imagine most of them will be "I got mine" and won't fight as hard for nationwide CCW for the 'rest' of us.

How many poor Americans (who don't pay ANY income tax) do you see fighting for tax cuts??

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 03:28 PM
But to which standard will I be held to if I am involved in an out of state deadly force encounter?

So, if I'm just a citizen, then why am I required to "jump through the hoops"?

Werewolf
June 18, 2004, 03:53 PM
The bill will never make it thru the Senate. If it does - as one poster already noted - it will probably have the AWB renewal attached to it which will kill it in the house. The bill is DOA.

That said I believe the bill is unconstitutional as it is in direct opposition to the 10th Amendment which reads:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In addition I am of the opinion that it clashes with the constitutional prohibition against laws creating special classes of people which this bill clearly does.

If by some miniscule chance the bill does make it to law - it will IMO be instantly challenged by many state AG's - even pro-gun ones in shall issue states - and most definitely by the AG's of Ca, Md, Ma, Il and Wi.

Augustwest
June 18, 2004, 04:04 PM
So, if I'm just a citizen, then why am I required to "jump through the hoops"?

The hoops are part of your job application, and your state or community requires them of someone who wants your job.

And frankly, I find any LEO who writes, "So, if I'm just a citizen..." really disconcerting. I dimly recall a time (well, maybe I've just read about it) when the state existed to serve the people...

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 04:16 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah, just a citizen......the plain jane, everday working stiff

Augustwest
June 18, 2004, 04:33 PM
So this is getting OT, but I have to ask you Steve, do you really think that your career choice somehow makes you superior to the people who pay your bills?

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 04:36 PM
I never said I was superior, only different. Doesn't mean I am better than you, or that you are better than me.....just that we are different.

The difference being is that I am held to a higher standard than you.

As I said, if I am involved in an out of state deadly force situation, will the headlines read........citizen Steve (with a CCW) was involved in..........or will it read, off-duty police officer Steve was involved in......???

spacemanspiff
June 18, 2004, 04:44 PM
personally i think the one who risks life and limb for those who whine, complain, and spout nonsense like "i know my rights because i read about them from reading about someones uncles wifes bosses niece's boyfriend who had his rights violated!" are more respectable.

the common folk dont seem to realize the elitist viewpoint they are taking.

"waaa waaa waaaaa! i'm more qualified to carry nationwide than so-and-so-with-a-badge because, well just because!"

Augustwest
June 18, 2004, 05:04 PM
Uh, who said anything about more qualified? No more and no less is my point. Y'know, "We hold these truths to be self-evident?"

And I know my rights because absent my infringing upon someone else's, I am a free man, not "from reading about someones uncles wifes bosses..."

And fwiw Steve, I'm grateful for the service you perform and the risks you take. I just don't think that your choice to do so makes you any more deserving of holding onto your rights than anyone else.

Diggler
June 18, 2004, 05:05 PM
IMHO,

Out of your jurisdiction is just that, out of your jurisdiction.

If you want to carry everywhere because you're a LEO, become a federale'.

Otherwise, you're just a guy from another state. Do you know all the laws of all the states?

Diggler
June 18, 2004, 05:12 PM
BTW,

If you're driving south to Florida in your minivan for vacation, and you see that there's a high-speed chase in progress, will you join the pursuit?

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 05:16 PM
If you go back and read one of my postings, I also said that CCW's should be treated like driver's licenses.....recognized my different states.




And in answer to......."Otherwise, you're just a guy from another state. Do you know all the laws of all the states?"

No, but I'm willing to bet I know a heck of a lot more than someone carrying "just" a CCW.

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 05:21 PM
Don't be a fool..........

I don't drive a minivan











But if I see someone with a gun attempting to car jack a soccer mom in her minivan, then yeah, I'll do something.

Diggler
June 18, 2004, 05:26 PM
I would do something to stop it as well. And I'm not LEO.

I don't believe you can lawfully perform LEO duties in another state. If not, then you are CCW'ing primarily for defense of you and yours. Same as the 'rest' of us. You have no more of a right to self defense than any other citizen.

When our CCW is finally recognized like a driver's license, then carry all you want anywhere you want. Until then, you should have to pay $150 for FL CCW licenses like the rest of travelers.

BTW, I work in a secure location and had intrusive background checks done on me. The whole single-scope check. Still doesn't give me the ability to carry in any state.

Mulder
June 18, 2004, 05:53 PM
Exempting certain classes of citizens from certain laws is a very bad precedent, which resembles a third-world oligarchy more than a Constitutional Republic.

If a law is so onerous that certain citizens should be exempted from it, then it is a bad law and should be repealed. On the other hand, if it is a good law, it should apply to everyone.

If an LEO wants to carry out-of-state, he or she should have to do like the rest of us, and throw down $200 for a CCW "permit". And he or she should have to spend hours reading up on the various state carry laws to stay "legal". And if they want to visit the 15 or so states that ban carry, too bad. They should have to do like the rest of us and either avoid those states, or travel unarmed through them.

As for the arguements that this is a "first step" towards nationwide recognition of CCW permits, can anyone cite where a state allowing off-duty cops to carry concealed led to a shall-issue CCW law? I didn't think so. All of the CCW laws that have been enacted have been as a result of grassroots efforts by the NRA and other pro-RKBA groups, in spite of efforts by many police "leaders" and organizations to oppose them.

Steve in PA
June 18, 2004, 06:01 PM
So, a LEO should have to spend hours reading up on the various state carry laws to stay "legal".

But a CCW'er, is exempt from the same standard? :scrutiny:

CZ-100
June 18, 2004, 06:04 PM
Steve in PA,

It sucks that LEO's have to comply with the same laws the rest of us do, doesn't it?

If the law says you need a CCW permit, then you need a CCW permit.

I have a lot of experience fishing. Been doing it all my life. Still, I have to have a license to do it. Too bad, but its just the way it is.


I agree!!

Diggler
June 18, 2004, 06:33 PM
Steve in PA,

No, that's not the point.

The point is that we already do that. I have several pages of printouts and summaries researched from packing.org and other resources that I keep in my car just to drive to Florida.

Anyone, please explain to me how this law meets the criteria for 'equal protection under the law.'

I don't blame you for wanting this law. If there would be a law passed for blond, blue eyed computer programmers to be allowed to CCW nationwide, I'd think, 'not really fair to the rest, but cool, at least I can do it!' That doesn't make it right.

Mulder
June 18, 2004, 08:40 PM
Steve in PA,

So, a LEO should have to spend hours reading up on the various state carry laws to stay "legal".

But a CCW'er, is exempt from the same standard?


Under current law, they both are expected to know the various carry laws in each state they go through.

I've been on two long road trips in the last 6 months (one to the West Coast, and one up to Virginia), and yes, I spent *hours* reading up on the various carry laws in each state. It isn't simply a matter of which states will recognize your 'permit', as you also have to know the off-limits places for carry, which states you have to notify an LEO if you are carrying and pulled over, and how to transport your weapon through states that don't recognize your 'permit'.

Cops that go out-of-state should have to do the exact same thing I or any other American does in order to "legally" carry a weapon.

Like I said before: if a law is so bad and confusing that even cops (who as a general rule are much more versed in the law that us non-cops), it needs to be repealed. The last thing that needs to happen is that only those who are 1) more knowledgable (generally) in the law, and 2) more likely to catch a break from another cop in the event they do violate that law, are exempted from the law.

Steve in PA
June 19, 2004, 01:12 PM
So, if my LEO ID/Credentials trumps my PA CCW in every way (and it does), then why shouldn't the states that recognize the CCW, recognize the LEO ID???

Diggler
June 19, 2004, 08:48 PM
Once I get my nationwide CCW permit, I have no problem with LEOs carrying nationwide without a CCW permit.

Hawkmoon
June 20, 2004, 01:13 AM
I appreciate the position LEAA takes on a law abiding citizen's right to carry (they are strongly in favor), but I can't say I'm assured they'll pursue national reciprocity for citizens like myself after they win their fight.
This is also my concern.

LEOs all want us to support their push to get interstate carry recognition, but once they get it I sincerely doubt that many of them will be around to push for us ordinary "citizens" with CCWs to get interstate reciprocity. And for that reason I am opposed to this. It should be all or nothing -- if the LEOs want interstate reciprocity, they can have it when they help enact it for all CCW holders.

Hawkmoon
June 20, 2004, 01:20 AM
So, if my LEO ID/Credentials trumps my PA CCW in every way (and it does), then why shouldn't the states that recognize the CCW, recognize the LEO ID???
Perhaps because outside of PA you are NOT an LEO ... you are an ordinary citizen, a "civilian." Just like the rest of us.

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 02:24 AM
I'll go back to a previous statement I made,

If I'm involved in an out of state use of deadly force, to which standard will I be held, a CCW'er.......or a LEO??? Still haven't got an answer for this.

Right now there is a push for a nationwide LEO carry law. If it goes through, it goes through, if it doesn't, it doesn't. I'll still carry out of state with my LEO ID.

But my question is still valid. A LEO, any LEO, not just me, has to "jump through hoops" to be qualified to carry a weapon, more so than any CCW'er in any state. You can jump up and down, scream and holler, but fact is fact.

In PA, getting a CCW is easier than getting a driver's license. So if a LEO has to go through all the things I listed in another post, why shouldn't it be recognized? Which is the basis for HR218.



PS. Hopefully this will be stay a civil discussion without it becoming a flamethrowing, pi$$ing contest like another thread.

Diggler
June 20, 2004, 10:09 AM
I would hope that you are held to the CCW'er standard. Out of your jurisdiction. Which means you can protect yourself or on behalf of those who are unable to protect themselves if there is danger to life or limb. No more than that. Same as everyone else. BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A LEO THERE.

Also, where is the logic that RETIRED LEO's still get to carry nationwide? This isn't a law enforcement tool that is being offered; this is buying off a segment of gun owners so they have no further stake in RKBA.

When all LEOs can carry anywhere they want nationwide, anytime they want, they won't give two ships about CCW for the rest of us.

goalie
June 20, 2004, 10:10 AM
If I'm involved in an out of state use of deadly force, to which standard will I be held, a CCW'er.......or a LEO??? Still haven't got an answer for this.


You are going to be held to the standards that any other out-of-state CCW holder would be held to: the state's standard for the use of deadly force. You will NOT be using that weapon legally in any offensive manner, a manner that a police officer possibly would, as you are not a LEO in that state. You are absolutely no different than I am when you are out of your jurisdiction, nor should you be. Ever.

A jury will not be able to hold you to any standard other than that of the state law that describes the lawful use of deadly force. Period.

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 01:58 PM
I disagree. Because I am a LEO, it will matter greatly in a court of law.

A LEO, is a LEO.....it doesn't get "turned off". Much the same as a doctor, EMT, etc. They are not like mechanics, etc.... at the end of your shift you punch out and your wrenching day is over.

Guess, we'll see what happens.

Werewolf
June 20, 2004, 03:17 PM
Steve in PA believes erroneously that:A LEO, is a LEO.....it doesn't get "turned off".If a LEO is out of his or her jurisdiction they better turn it off! Outside of their jurisdicition they are just plain vanilla citizens. A PA cop has no more rights or responsibilities in TX, OK, Ca or any other state they're in while outside of their home jurisdiction than those of a non LEO citizen.

Cops outside of their jurisdictions are not COPS! They're citizens. Professional courtesy may get them out of a ticket but if they stick they're nose in out of state business without being invited to do so or without legal authority to do so they're doing it as a citizen and subjecting themselves to all that that entails.

Granting national CCW to LEO's may or may not be the right thing to do but if one is involved in an incident outside of their jurisdiction they should be treated no different from the way a citizen would be treated in the same situation.

COPS are not a special class of citizen. They are not military. They are not law makers. They produce nothing. They are not supermen or heroes. They are citizens who have chosen to be in a profession with the responsibilty to provide order to the collective (heck - they don't even have a responsibility to provide protection to individual citizens).

With that responsibility some necessary authority is attached. It seems that that authority has gone to some LEO's heads and makes them feel special. They best get over that or eventually the people they are providing order to may decide to fire 'em, change the rules and hire a new bunch.

Reno
June 20, 2004, 03:22 PM
Steve, can you link some cases where someone was held to a higher standard because he is/was a LEO?

Happened here a few years ago that a LEO perjured himself to get a no-knock that resulted in the murder of an innocent man. He got a 9-month paid vacation. That doesn't sound like a "higher standard" to me.

Just admit it - you get special treatment and you think you're better than the people who back your paycheck.

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 04:03 PM
Well the people sponsoring HR218, think different.

And even if I did think I am better than you, so what?

A brain surgeon thinks he is better than me, a mailman thinks he is better than me, a politician thinks he is better than me, you think you are better than me. So what?

What about the CCW'er who gets special treatment, they think they are better than someone who doesn't have a CCW.

Reno
June 20, 2004, 04:08 PM
You get special treatment, but you like to act like you are more harshly scrutinized. Are you going to provide evidence of LEOs being punished more harshly than a serf, or are you going to retract your statement? Or are you just going to continue with the high-and-mighty act? If you are, I'm just going to ignore you from now on. However, if you'd like to present arguments with a basis in reality, I'd be glad to participate in a civil debate.

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 05:11 PM
I really don't care if you ignore me or not.

Do I have proof or evidence to my statement, no. But I also haven't seen evidence to where they were treated like someone with a CCW either.

Again, if as you say I feel high and mighty, so what. You don't like it, well too bad. A firefighter feels "high and mighty" compared to me, just ask them :D We go round and round with this at work because the fireman and police share the same building. I wouldn't want to run into a burning building......, just as he doesn't want to deal with the crap I do.

So he feels high and mighty about his job. I feel high and mighty about my job. Does that make me better than him, or he better than I? No. But amongst the fireman, they feel high and mighty, as do lawyers, as does any "group" of people.

Answer the question about the CCW'er getting "special treatent". Why should you get special treatment because you have a CCW? Why do you think you are high and mighty compared to someone who doesn't? Aren't you a "special class of citizen" then? And yes, there tons of proof for this. Just read the boards and you'll see where its happened. Heck, I've done it myself, given someone a break because he came forward with the fact that he was carrying, which he did not have to do according to PA law.

Just because I am for a nationwide LEO carry doesn't mean I'm against a nationwide CCW carry. Debating the topic of this thread is one thing, how I feel and act on the street is another. I copied this from GT, and it says sums up my attitude;

"Originally posted by 7677
emrgnc,
In my law enforcement career, I have found that there are enough real criminals out there that I don't have to create criminals from out of state LEO's and ccw permit holders. We need to remember that these same LEO's or citizens with a ccw may be the one that saves our bacon when we are getting the crap beat out us on the side of the road. "

goalie
June 20, 2004, 05:25 PM
The only "special treatment" a CCW holder will get here in Minneapolis is verbal abuse from the local police thugs who will tell you (actual quote said to me) "I don't think you civilians should even be allowed to own handguns, let alone get permits and carry them."

Some special treatment.

Oh, and FWIW, it takes more of a man to save lives than to take them. I've done both, and I agree with the surgeon: he IS better than you.

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 05:28 PM
Thats ok.......doesn't mean you are better than me though :neener:

PS. I've never taken a life, but I've saved several. So now what?

Reno
June 20, 2004, 05:28 PM
First off, I said nothing about CCWers getting preferential treatment, only LEOs getting it compared to ordinary citizens. Now, why would you make a statement that not only do you have no evidence of, but is in fact downright false?

Police are treated much more "nicely" when it comes to criminal infractions, period. I would ask that you stop claiming that you face so much more scrutiny than an "ordinary citizen," seeing as how you admit that you have no evidence for this false statement.

Diggler
June 20, 2004, 05:35 PM
Let's back away from the delusions of grandeur for a minute, since that is something best addressed by a licensed psychiatrist. Do I think I'm any better than someone else because I have a clean record and had 3 friends that wouldn't say anything bad about me to the sheriff? I don't think so. I also know that being a police officer doesn't make that person any better than me. Yeah, I took the little PSP exam many years ago and considered going that route. No problems with the exam, that's for sure... I had another opportunity come up in the meantime in the computer field while waiting for my group to be called to Harrisburg so I took it and left my LEO aspirations in the past.

I still can't believe that someone would actually say OUT LOUD that they think they're better. :rolleyes: Dude, that just proves that, no matter WHAT job you have, YOU'RE NOT.

Anyways, if you could humor this lowly non-LEO, I'd be honored to hear the answer to my previous question...

What part of HR 218 doesn't violate equal protection under the law?

goalie
June 20, 2004, 05:41 PM
Steve isn't going to let a little reality rain on his parade. I can point to tons of evidence that the police are held to lower standards than Joe Six-Pack. The most glaring examples are those of Lon Horiuchi, (all the guys at Waco and Ruby Ridge actually) the officers that shot an unarmed man over 20 times in New York City a while ago when he went for his wallet (can you imagine the DA not going after a civilian who did that? I mean, c'mon, they prosecuted the guy who defended his family with an unregistered gun for pete's sake?!?!?!?!) and let's not forget the several instances of no-knock warrants at the wrong address with bad outcomes. Nah, Steve is in fantasy land if he thinks that the police are held to a higher standard than the average, non LEO BB member if something were to happen. He can keep saying it over and over, but my own recent, personal, real-life experience tells me that it is not true.

As for "several" lives saved, I've done that in one shift as the critical care circulator at a big hospital. Heck, I've shocked the same guy out of v-fib four different times in less than an hour. Call me when you hit double, or better yet, triple, digits.

Thats ok.......doesn't mean you are better than me though



I didn't say I was, I said your hypothetical surgeon was though. From what I've read from you, I hit an X.

Publicola
June 20, 2004, 05:58 PM
An LEO is an agent of the government. period. While the job description & duties may be a little different in principle this is the same thing as a bill that would allow all government employees to carry nationwide sans permit.

Now how would you feel if the senate proposes a bill to allow permit-less concealed carry nationwide for all members of congress & their staffers? After all congresspeople are in considerably more individual danger than an LEO since throught he abuse of their discretion they pass laws which would give people incentive to attack them.

As for the LEO trainig requirements making it a different case: I disagree. I've talked with many cops over the years & through either ignorance or malicious disregard they've usually been no more knowledgable about the law in their area than any other person. I'll grant some of this comes from bad info from their department, but the idea that LEO's are more well versed in the law is not always (& perhaps not even generally) true.

& go to any IPSC match: odds are you'll find that the civilians on the whole will have a higher standard of skill when it comes to using firearms than LEO's as a whole. Thios is because there are more civilian gun enthusiasts than there are LEO gun enthusiasts. A lot of cops shoot because they have to: a lot of civilians shoot because they want to.

As for being better...look, you're gonna think whatever you wish & justify it so you'll feel comfy about your conclusion. But there is something fundamentally wrong about an agent of government having a superiority complex. Your job is not that dangerous (more delivery drivers are killed every year than LE's for example) & your skills not that inherent. Sure, it's not a pleasant job but that doesn't entitle you to special benefits.

But as a general rule CCW holders tend to think of themselves as a special class of citizen as well. That's the whole point of CCW: to divide the citizenry into two distinct classes.

So I'll go one further: If LEO's get nationwide carry they won't help get nationwide carry for CCW holders, & if CCW holders get nationwide carry they probably won't help get nationwide permitless carry for those of us who think we are too good to beg & bribe for a permission slip to exercise a Right.

In the end LEO's should be able to carry nationwide sans permit, just as CCW holders should be able to caryy nationwide sans permit, just as non-ccw holders should be able to carry nationwide sans permit.

What y'all seem to be arguing over is that concealed carry is a privilege & some of the details need to be hammered out. It'd be much more defensible to argue that concealed or open carry is a Right & no one has the authority to prohibit you from doing it.

BTW, the papers & the prosecution or defense (whichever would be applicable) would try to harp on the fact that an LEO was involved in an incident. But the LEO's attorney would also use this to his/her advantage in providing an argument that the LEO was trained & somehow more capable of using deadly force than just your average citizen. So I don't think the argument that an LEO will be treated differently is a reason to argue that you're at a disadvantage: I think the reverse would be true.

An off duty cop used a gun to stop a school shooting in Va. a while back. Out of several dozen papers that covered the story only 3 mentioned that a citizen (which is what an off-duty cop is) used a firearm to stop a shooting. They mentioned his off duty leo status but that was it. No shots were fired (by the leo) so no charges were considered.

Bottom line is that if you want to carry nationwide sans permit, then try to push through legislation that demands recognition of everyone's Right to own & carry weapons, not just some piece of tripe that grants even more special immunities to government employees or those who begged permission & paid a bribe to get into a state's :i'mmore law abiding than thou" club. Incrememntalism is a strategy for attack, not defense. We're defending a pre-existing Right, not trying to create one out of thin air. Oppose the cop only carry bill, & oppose any permit only carry bill. Support any bill that treats carrying the way it should be treated: as a Right.

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 07:32 PM
So we agree, to disagree.

pax
June 20, 2004, 09:52 PM
Well, the one thing this thread has underlined is that even pro-RKBA LEOs won't really care whether ordinary CCW holders get nationwide reciprocity or not as long as they get theirs.

Once they have theirs, they won't fight for ours. Hell, the majority won't even fight for ours with theirs, if there's any chance it means that they'll have to sink or swim along with us.

And yeah, I know that's plain old human nature -- but some of the posters here are going out of their way to make human nature bloody obvious for the slow learners among us.

Too bad.

pax

Experience teaches only the teachable. -- Aldous Huxley

Steve in PA
June 20, 2004, 10:06 PM
These were my responses throughout this thread:

1) Now before the crazies come out of the closet and jump all over my posting, I think a CCW......your CCW, my CCW, should be recognized by every state, much like drivers licenses are.

2) If you go back and read one of my postings, I also said that CCW's should be treated like driver's licenses.....recognized by different states.

3) Just because I am for a nationwide LEO carry doesn't mean I'm against a nationwide CCW carry. Debating the topic of this thread is one thing, how I feel and act on the street is another. I copied this from GT, and it says sums up my attitude;

"Originally posted by 7677
emrgnc,
In my law enforcement career, I have found that there are enough real criminals out there that I don't have to create criminals from out of state LEO's and ccw permit holders. We need to remember that these same LEO's or citizens with a ccw may be the one that saves our bacon when we are getting the crap beat out us on the side of the road. "

Frohickey
June 20, 2004, 10:14 PM
These were my responses throughout this thread:

1) Now before the crazies come out of the closet and jump all over my posting, I think a CCW......your CCW, my CCW, should be recognized by every state, much like drivers licenses are.

2) If you go back and read one of my postings, I also said that CCW's should be treated like driver's licenses.....recognized by different states.

3) Just because I am for a nationwide LEO carry doesn't mean I'm against a nationwide CCW carry.

I agree with most of what you say, except that the correct way of doing so is by having each of the 50 state legislatures decide their own reciprocity rules. Just like each state decides on its own if they will honor another state's drivers license.

Doing it the way HR218 wants to do it, establishes a bad precedent, IMHO.

Hawkmoon
June 20, 2004, 10:23 PM
Steve:
But my question is still valid. A LEO, any LEO, not just me, has to "jump through hoops" to be qualified to carry a weapon, more so than any CCW'er in any state. You can jump up and down, scream and holler, but fact is fact.

In PA, getting a CCW is easier than getting a driver's license. So if a LEO has to go through all the things I listed in another post, why shouldn't it be recognized? Which is the basis for HR218.

Sorry, but I really have to disagree. We are talking about a NATIONAL situation, but you're looking at it purely on PA standards. There are many jurisdictions in the U.S. where LEOs don't have to "jump through hoops" to get certified in fireamrs, and once "qualified" they certainly don't have to jump through any hoops to remain certified. Just ask some department firearms instructors about the problems they have keeping some officers qualified.

On the other hand, while PA's requirements for a CCW may seem inconsequential to you, there are other states that require a class taking 4 or 8 hours and in some states 2 to 3 days to complete, plus having to fire a qualifying target upon completion.

There is no "one size fits all" here. I don't have a problem helping make you legal in other states if you help me be legal in other states. As long as the law is for LEOs only, it's unfair, unreasonable, and unconstitutional.

Hawkmoon
June 20, 2004, 10:32 PM
An off duty cop used a gun to stop a school shooting in Va. a while back. Out of several dozen papers that covered the story only 3 mentioned that a citizen (which is what an off-duty cop is) used a firearm to stop a shooting. They mentioned his off duty leo status but that was it. No shots were fired (by the leo) so no charges were considered.
Well, I don't know the law in VA, but in my state an LEO is an LEO anywhere in the state, 24/7. Going off duty does NOT render him or her a mere citizen. Other states may be different, but I suspect that most are similar to mine in this regard.

Crossing state lines, however, DOES render an LEO a mere citizen.

Lone_Gunman
June 20, 2004, 10:36 PM
The difference being is that I am held to a higher standard than you.


Baloney.

I think that police officers are held to a lower standard when it comes to shootings than I would be as a citizen, and I am happy to cite examples.

Remember that guy in NYC that several police cornered and shot 15 or so times while he was trying to reach for his wallet? Sorry but I dont remember his name, it was a couple of years ago.

About 4 months ago a cop had pulled over a citizen near Columbus GA, and accidentally shot him while was was laying flat on the ground.

Those are just 2 examples I could think of right off the top of my head where I believe a common citizen would have been charged with murder.

If you enjoyed reading about "Hr 218" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!