HR 218 passes Senate & House


PDA






Frohickey
July 7, 2004, 08:21 PM
Okay, I just received an email from the LEAA...

=====
Urgent Alert from our friends at the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) www.leaa.org

H.R. 218 Passes Senate
The bill now heads to the President for his signature

LEAA's 12 year fight for 'National Concealed Carry for Cops' is finally victorious in Congress. The Senate tonight passed H.R. 218 in a unanimous consent agreement. The House passed the bill back on June 23rd and it will now go to President Bush, who has indicated his strong support for the bill. For more information visit LEAA''s web site at www.leaa.org/218
=====

:scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "HR 218 passes Senate & House" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gray Peterson
July 7, 2004, 08:29 PM
*sigh* Super Citizens.

Moparmike
July 7, 2004, 08:32 PM
Did it have any attachments?

lostone1413
July 7, 2004, 08:37 PM
Police State here we come!

Cacique500
July 7, 2004, 08:43 PM
America's men and women in blue deserved the right to protect themselves and their families from threats that didn't go away at the state line

That's an interesting quote from the LEAA site...

jmcc11
July 7, 2004, 09:07 PM
Does anyone know where I can find the text of this bill?

lostone1413
July 7, 2004, 09:07 PM
I wonder about the rest of us. I for one won't be voting for GWB if he signs this and he said he would. Like I said hello Police State!

DBK
July 7, 2004, 09:11 PM
It's a start! Now lets work on NATION CCW! If your driver license is valid, so should your CCW!

Third_Rail
July 7, 2004, 09:12 PM
If it passed without amendments, good.

I can't say that I like being in a sub-class of citizens, but 99% of LEOs deserve this. Just because we can't get it for ourselves DOES NOT mean that we should stop another group; that's ridiculous.

Also ridiculous is thinking that since LEOs can now CCW across all 50, we're suddenly a "police state". :rolleyes:

Take the tinfoil hats off, please.

Gray Peterson
July 7, 2004, 09:15 PM
No amendments. If an AWB was attached there would have been more noise, and the house would have demanded a conference committee. Looks like all the Senate did was pass the House version without amendment.

What we should be looking at is the Class Action Bill that's being proposed and debated tommorow.

Frohickey
July 7, 2004, 09:26 PM
I have talked with the LEAA during past gunshows and NRA annual meetings and have been said that National CCW for Law Enforcement is not the end goal of the group.

I think that we need to hold the LEAA's feet to the fire and make sure that they lobby for National CCW for ALL CCW holders.

Thats what I'm going to be writing them an email and letter about once HR218 has been signed by the President (since we can't stop it now).

GEM
July 7, 2004, 09:38 PM
I understand the opposition to the bill on the grounds that police do not get special privileges. I originally opposed this bill for that.

However, my opinion changed for strategic reasons. Antigunners were against the bill. As we know, GWB hasn't exactly been proactive in expanding (or you might say restoring gun rights). Now he is forced to sign a progun bill (or it is for some). This is a foot in door, small committment from him which may increase the likelihood that he will sign other progun bills if they can get to him.

Of course, we all hope the AWB doesn't get to him. I am more hopeful lately. I previously denounced GWB for his support of the AWB. Signing this bill may nudge him in the right direction.

lostone1413
July 7, 2004, 09:39 PM
How can anyone who isn't a LEO think this is good?LOL Here the majority of the LEOs are backing Kerry. Everyone forget he is the one who wants to take your right to carry away. Maybe it is most think because a person is a LEO he is more law abiding then the other people who are out their. I got news they are no better then 95% of us non-LEOs

DBK
July 7, 2004, 09:55 PM
Backing Kerry? This is news to me! What is your source? The main-stream press?:rolleyes:

lostone1413
July 7, 2004, 10:04 PM
It would be the head of their international union that backed Kerry You know who puts them in office???

Kharn
July 7, 2004, 10:08 PM
How'd the Anti's let this one slip past them? I was watching CSpan2 when it came up at like 7:15pm and I didnt even realize it passed, I guess Frist finally pulled a fast one on the antis.

Now we've got to hold the LEAA to helping the rest of us get CCW.

Kharn

DBK
July 7, 2004, 10:09 PM
Oh, I'm only a street cop, not part of the international union. And I don't even know the secret handshake.:rolleyes:

Shootcraps
July 7, 2004, 10:19 PM
"LEAA and Congressman Cunningham believed that qualified off duty and retired law enforcement officers ought to have the tools to match their training whether they are traveling out of state, or retired. America's men and women in blue deserved the right to protect themselves and their families from threats that didn't go away at the state line and criminal grudges that didn't end at the officer's retirement party."


I'm not so sure this is a good thing either. Where has it been proven that this is a need of the LEO community?

From what I've read, somewhere around 60-75% of leo's don't give a hoot about guns and see them only as a tool for work. Would these folks take advantage of this?

Would retired leo's take advantage of it? They're retired, maybe they don't want to do leo stuff anymore.

And what about jurisdiction? A Cincinnati Policeman has no police powers outside of Cincinnati. What if he is carrying in Texas and starts acting like a cop and starts pushing citizens around?

If they need protection across state lines or after their retirement party, maybe they should get in line and sign up for CCW's just like the rest of us. What's wrong with that?

I agree that it's a strong pro-gun law. If GWB signs it, I think the LEAA should be seriously pushing for National CCW for all CCW holders. That's only fair.

GigaBuist
July 7, 2004, 10:23 PM
I hate the idea of police officers being a privledged citizen. It's not that I don't think they deserve the right to carry nationwide or anything -- I just really wish being a LEO wasn't associated with being the pinnacle of being an honest citizen.

Maybe, just maybe, this could be turned into something that helps us all out. After LEOs get nationwide CCW we hijack the system, so to speak, and get an opportunity as regular citizens to go through police training, and yearly firearms qualification, for nationwide CCW.

I do wonder though if this CCW is subject to state laws. Here if I have an unloaded and cased pistol on my passenger seat in a range bag it's considered illegal unless you have a CCW. If you have a BAC over 0.02 i'ts illegal even if you have a CCW. Granted, it's a law I'm OK with but I'd like to see the LEOs abide by it if I have to. What about schools or venues that hold over 2500 people?

If they're granted the ability to do it it opens up a hole for us "serfs" too. A small hole, but there is hope there. On the other hand I hate the idea of somebody that "serves the public" being granted more rights than me.

Bah.

lostone1413
July 7, 2004, 10:30 PM
Shootcraps I agree with you They should just get a CCW like the rest of us. All I see anymore is the average American has less and less rights. Any nation that has passed strong anti-gun legislation has allowed the ones who represent the goverment to keep their guns. I do look at this not as a good think but as the start of a police state.

blackdragon
July 7, 2004, 10:43 PM
I was fairly undecided on if this was a good thing or not, until I browsed the LEAA web site. Keep in mind these guys successfully lobbied 218 through.

Article titles:

Time Running Out for the Clinton Gun and Magazine Ban
It was a bad law from the start...

Cops versus Gun Control
The simple truth in undeniable: rank-and-file cops oppose gun control.

Self-Defense and the Armed Citizen
...Find out how gun control is killing law-abiding citizens...

These guys definately appear to be on our side...and effective. Sounds like a group that would be good to support...

Keith

Shootcraps
July 7, 2004, 10:43 PM
I'll have to look at the bill and see what the conditions are for them to carry. There also need to be some serious consequences if they get out of line. Some leo's are not angels and might take liberties with this law. Remember a few years back when the big group of New York City cops went to a big Wash DC hotel for a convention? Their behavior made the wildest Frat party you ever heard of sound like kindergarten parties in comparison. And did any of them get punished? Nope. Why not? Professional courtesy.

How many leo's are willing to arrest another leo who's disturbing the peace?

Shootcraps
July 7, 2004, 10:45 PM
"Cops versus Gun Control
The simple truth in undeniable: rank-and-file cops oppose gun control."


Well when are they going to kick their leaders in the kiester and tell them to stop mis-representing them????

Hypnogator
July 7, 2004, 10:46 PM
With all due respect to the opinions of the many who have opposed this bill, I just don't see any downside. It's a foot in the door for national CCW or (more likely) mandated universal CCW reciprocity. The public view LEOs (rightly or wrongly) as being better trained and more stable than the general public, and thus are less opposed to allowing them to carry. One of the major arguments against the bill from the police heirarchy is that officers will be endangered by "stranger" officers with weapons in their jurisdictions. This hasn't happened, and when it doesn't happen after passage, that argument will hold just as much water as the "blood in the street" argument against CCW.

Although I sympathize to a certain degree with those who feel that this creates a class of "super citizen," those who are vocal against it aren't the ones who are likely to actually need CCW. Yes, I believe that everyone who isn't a convicted felon or mentally defective should have the right to carry a conealed weapon, but in terms of actual malice directed against the carrier, the general public won't find someone coming at them that they put in jail a few years ago.

Just my $.02 worth.

Shootcraps
July 7, 2004, 10:54 PM
"It's a foot in the door for national CCW or (more likely) mandated universal CCW reciprocity.'


ONLY if that foot belongs to LEAA, and they along with a majority of leo's really suport it. Once they have this, they could turn their backs on us with the argument that we aren't leo's and don't need national ccw.

THEN they have to convince Congress and GWB that it's a good idea for the rest of us.

manwithoutahome
July 7, 2004, 11:05 PM
Bad bill.

Once they get CCW for all LEO's and Retires then the anti's are going to really hit the "only cops should have guns and they will protect you and now they can protect you all the time no matter where you are"....

And thus, it will come. Why do us "civilians" need guns since any active duty LEO and retired LEO can carry and they will be there to protect you.

Bad bill. Why didn't they include active duty military, retired military and those who have been in the military?

We received the same training. We had to qualify and we had to carry our weapons the same as the LEO's.

Bad bill. This is not going to go in our favor.

And, did frankenstein attach her bill?

Wayne

Ellery Holt
July 7, 2004, 11:07 PM
Shootcraps writes:

...and starts acting like a cop and starts pushing citizens around?

I'm not sure how this sentence is supposed to read. Freudian slip?

Ex-Doc
July 7, 2004, 11:14 PM
"the general public won't find someone coming at them that they put in jail a few years ago."

Last time I checked jurys put criminals in jail, who are made up of the general public! this is an equal protection issue that needs to be addressed

Evicted tenants, disgrunteled employees, psycho ex-partners, i could go on and on on those who do come after others....

A hillbilly judge dred running around out of bounds, no thanks.

Shootcraps
July 7, 2004, 11:19 PM
Sorry. Not very clear. Will some leo's take this as a license to be a cop in places where they have no police powers?

I.E., Legally, a Houston cop in Hackensack has no police powers. But will Hackensack police be so anxious to prosecute a Houston cop who oversteps the bound of the national ccw? Or will the "code" of the leo prevail and the Houston cop will not be hassled, whereas a non-leo would be hauled off to jail in a heartbeat?

Coronach
July 7, 2004, 11:33 PM
I dislike the inequalities present under the current system, and as such I also dislike the inequalities under this bill. For a bit of background, I'm from a CCW state, and at 21 years old I had my first CCW permit. I then moved to a state with no CCW. I then became a cop in that state, and was allowed to CCW. Now the state as a whole has a (pretty whacked out, I'll admit) CCW law. I wholeheartedly support CCW for citizens in general.

That said, I also support this bill. Why? Is part of it a selfish 'gimme mine' impulse? Sure it is. I also supported CCW for cops at the state level back before I was a cop, and when I was a cop and Ohio's CCW bill was considered dead in the water. But I also supported (and support) CCW for all at the state level, just as I do at the national level. I got mine, but I sure as heck want you to have yours too.

This is a foot in the door. Suddenly we have a federal law stating that each state shall honor every other state's LEO carry privs. How long until a case can be pushed forward mandating full faith and credit for non-LEO CCW permits? Or, taking another tack, how long until someone makes a successful equal protection case?

The stumbling block of the libertarian/pro-2nd side is that we demand the perfect bill. "It needs to be exactly this way or I will NEVER support it! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!" Meanwhile, as we backstab and argue and attempt to tar and feather everyone who is not a True Believer, the antis/collectivists compromise their way forward on every issue. They wanted to ban all semi-auto rifles. Heck, they want to ban all guns. They got the 1994 Assault weapons ban and were happy about it. What did we get? 10 years of high-caps and low-caps and no muzzle devices, yadda yadda yadda. How did they get this? They compromised and took what they could get. We darned well ought to do the same.

(A sidenote: I will always compromise on offense. Like football, its a game of inches. Never compromise on defense. Like football, the Prevent Defense is stupid.)

Also? "most cops support Kerry'? Erm. Our labor unions tend to support him. Why? They're labor unions. Thats the way they lean. It has painfully little to do with the likes or dislikes of the membership, unless someone or something really stirs up the pot.

Pop Quiz: Who did the FOP back in 2000, and why?

Answer: It wasn't Gore, and the reason why was a revolt of the rank and file over the entrenched leadership.

I'm happy this passed. Its a foot in the door. Now, lets get the activist and lawyers ready to punch it wide open.

Mike

Jeff White
July 7, 2004, 11:37 PM
Lot's of cop-bashing going on here......Shootcraps, just what is your problem with the people that work for you? You said;

I'm not so sure this is a good thing either. Where has it been proven that this is a need of the LEO community?

Threats are a fact of life in this profession. Most of them are just talk, but two people did nine years for conspiracy to kill myself and another officer. I had to evacuate my family for a few days when it all went down. That wasn't an isolated instance either.

From what I've read, somewhere around 60-75% of leo's don't give a hoot about guns and see them only as a tool for work. Would these folks take advantage of this?

NO, I don't think that the folks who don't carry off duty now would take advantage of it. But in states where CCW is legal only a very small percent of those eligible take advantage of it. And of those that get their permits many seldom carry. So using your logic, maybe we should do away with CCW? Not enough people use it. I don't think you'd approve of that.

Would retired leo's take advantage of it? They're retired, maybe they don't want to do leo stuff anymore.

Again, some would and some wouldn't. How is carrying weapon doing leo stuff? Are CCW holders doing leo stuff?

And what about jurisdiction? A Cincinnati Policeman has no police powers outside of Cincinnati. What if he is carrying in Texas and starts acting like a cop and starts pushing citizens around?

Any why would he do that? Surely you don't think that possession of a firearm is what gives aan officer police powers? My police powers are given to me on a piece of paper that is an official commission. That piece of paper says that I am a sworn officer in a specific jurisdiction. Considering court entanglements and tons of paperwork and unfamiliarity with the laws in other jurisdictions, I rather doubt that anyone would want to push citizens around. Could you define pushing citizens around for me?

If they need protection across state lines or after their retirement party, maybe they should get in line and sign up for CCW's just like the rest of us. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. Here in Illinois, there is no such thing as CCW. There are many people working towards it, even police officers, but we're not there yet.

I agree that it's a strong pro-gun law. If GWB signs it, I think the LEAA should be seriously pushing for National CCW for all CCW holders. That's only fair.

LEAA has been pushing for national CCW since I became a member in 1994.

I'll have to look at the bill and see what the conditions are for them to carry. There also need to be some serious consequences if they get out of line. Some leo's are not angels and might take liberties with this law. Remember a few years back when the big group of New York City cops went to a big Wash DC hotel for a convention? Their behavior made the wildest Frat party you ever heard of sound like kindergarten parties in comparison. And did any of them get punished? Nope. Why not? Professional courtesy.

How many leo's are willing to arrest another leo who's disturbing the peace?

Well maybe we should deny CCWs to members of fraternal organizations, bowling teams and other groups who have been known to party wildly and may take liberties with the CCW laws? How do you know no one was punished in the incident you referred to? Often the administrative punishments available can be much more severe then the criminal punishments. Ever make a driving mistake and get in a traffic accident? Maybe you got a traffic ticket out of the deal. Small fine....Make the same mistake in a squad car, and you're liable to get 3-5 days off without pay in a lot of places.

This is a victory for everyones gun rights. It's the first step on the road to CCW reciprocity. Lets not let our personal feelings about police officers get in the way or progress.

Jeff

stevelyn
July 8, 2004, 12:01 AM
This bill has nothing to do with an officer playing cop outside his or her jurisdiction. It about self-defense pure and simple. Same as those supporting national right to carry for everyone. Most cops have better things to do in their off time than to start poaching in other jurisdictions especially with family members in the potential line of fire.
If they don't, their agency better send them in for another psych eval because they definitely have a screw rattling around. Not to mention that officers acting outside their jurisdictions are placing themselves and their agencies at grave liability risks. They are probably also violating department policies in doing so.
This bill obviously benefits me, but I hope above all else that first it was a clean bill with no AWB bagage hanging off it. Secondly, when your enemy is starting to break, you chase them down and put steel between their shoulder blades. The antis are begining to break. Now is the time to fix bayonets and use HR 218 to build support for national right to carry for all CHL holders. HR 218 took 12 years and a lot of dedication. National right to carry for CHLs isn't going to be any easier.
A good starting point for the arguement would be a look at the "shall issue" states that already have reciprocity laws in effect and the statistical results since enactment.

Shield529
July 8, 2004, 12:19 AM
As a Police Officer, I am glad that we are getting this so I can protect my family everywhere I travel.

That said I want to address a few things I have seen on this board.
1. Most officers do not "push citizens around", we are very oversighted and second guessed.
Yes I will be the first to admit Police ARE NOT PERFECT, we are citizens and humans just like you we have faults and bad days and even scumbags within our ranks, but most of us try to help others and feel bad when things go wrong.

2. If an officer has lost his sanity to the point he is acting cop like -- or taking unneeded action off-duty, better that he be exposed so he can get the mental help he needs.

3. I know about 50 Police officers personally and many more online. 5 I have spoke to oppose CCW. We are on your side.

4. We do not support Kerry for the love of all things.

5. Next time you encounter one of us try being nice instead off stand-offish or spouting laws to us.
If we are wrong talk to us like another human and not the Jack booted thugs so many people think we are.
Treating a person nicely may just help.

Remember we are just like you, we are citizens we have familys and BBQ on the weekends.

CCW nationwide for all.

Thanks for letting me spout.

MikeT11
July 8, 2004, 12:45 AM
I don't care for this bill as I see it as a way to create a divide between officers and the rest of the public and it does define a "special" class of citizens. On the other hand it could provide a foot in the door to get nation wide CCW so while it may seem bad now it could prove useful later.

cropcirclewalker
July 8, 2004, 12:57 AM
I read this thread in a hurry, so I could be wrong, but is there anybody out there but me wondering where congress got the authority to over ride the states?

Remember States Rights?

If somebody claims that congress gets their clout from 2a then it exposes the whole double standard thing. This is absolutely in opposition to US v Cruickshank.

This bill will not hold up against an anti sueing. Scotus will never let this stand. Pick one....9a, 10a, 14a.

Dubya signs every bill infront of him, but this one is history. In advance. Clever ploy to make us think that he and congress is pro gun. What fools they think us to be.

If Dr. Paul voted for this it's a miracle.

:scrutiny:

tyme
July 8, 2004, 02:23 AM
It's unconstitutional and it's a bad idea.

Would all you H.R. 218 supporter support a bill recognizing the right of white people to have national ccw? That would be a good thing, right? :rolleyes: It might lead to national ccw for everyone!

This is the same thing. There's some small chance it'll gather the momentum for real national ccw, but at the moment it's a selective recognition of rights that violates equal protection and states' rights. It worsens the already strained "us vs them" relationship between disgruntled citizens and police.

Kharn
July 8, 2004, 08:19 AM
Some things I noticed while reading the bill: (Click here and do a bill search for HR218 (thomas.loc.gov))

1. Its split into two parts:
Cops (926B) and retired cops (926C). 926C can be found unconstitutional due to equal protection but 926B could still survive. Then the fight has to start all over again if retired cops want to be able to carry, but this time for all non-LEOs, not just retired LEOs.

2. They still have to obey state laws on signage for private persons or entities. Many may-issue states do not have signage laws (Maryland, NY, Kali?, etc), so this could get interesting. :)

3. The state governments can only directly control CCW on state property.

4. No MGs, silencers or DDs may be carried, but anything else is a go (SBR, SBS, fullsize long-gun, AOW, pistol, etc). :D

5. LEOs and retired LEOs must all pass the department qualifications to carry a firearm, with qualification occuring within the last year.

6. As it was passed by Unanimous Consent (meaning noone objected to it), I'm going to send Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes a "thank-you for seeing the light and allowing nationwide CCW for officers, now please expand that right towards all citizens"-letter just to ruffle their feathers. Too bad I cant draw a :neener: on the paper.

Kharn

halvey
July 8, 2004, 08:50 AM
Guys,
This is good. It's called incrementalism. The left has been doing it for 40 years. And it worked. Now it's our turn.

K-Romulus
July 8, 2004, 09:10 AM
To repeat (in my own words) what the other guy said, this is good. It's incrementalism. The Right has been pursuing incrementalism for 30 years, and it's worked.

Remember, the civil rights movement was started with an incrementalist strategy, and they won. Now firearms owners have continued the fight with this bill that is a MAJOR step towards recognizing the civil right to individual self defense separate and apart from government action.

This bill is HUGE!!! Its passage into law will mean that by LEO brother in Alaska can CCW when he visits my father in NYC, without the NYC government's "permission." Or when he visits me in MD, or when he does the tourist thing in DC. Think about that.

Also remember, FOPA protects people who are traveling to a different state. This interstate travel principle underlies 99% of the federal non-discrimination laws; no state can claim exemption from those. This CCW bill follows the same logic because it concerns LEO travel to another state. I don't see how it could be challenged. But I am sure many will try.

whoami
July 8, 2004, 09:25 AM
This bill has nothing to do with an officer playing cop outside his or her jurisdiction. It about self-defense pure and simple.

Same as those supporting national right to carry for everyone. Most cops have better things to do in their off time than to start poaching in other jurisdictions especially with family members in the potential line of fire.
If they don't, their agency better send them in for another psych eval because they definitely have a screw rattling around. Not to mention that officers acting outside their jurisdictions are placing themselves and their agencies at grave liability risks. They are probably also violating department policies in doing so.


That is not true, at least according to the LEAA....
http://www.leaa.org/218/talkingpoints.html

In a time where Homeland Security is paramount, H.R. 218/S.253 gives America countless additional trained and armed first responders at no additional cost to the taxpayers.

H.R. 218 and S. 253 give off-duty, as well as retired, police officers Right To Carry reciprocity throughout the nation in order to help prevent crime in our communities. All too often, current and retired officers come upon situations in which they can prevent violent crime and save lives. It is common sense they continue to have the tool of their trade available to serve and protect.

H.R. 218 and S. 253 will allow tens of thousands of additionally equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no cost to taxpayers.

I'm not saying self-defense is a major part of the legislation, but to flatly state that it is only about self defense is disingenious and a misrepresentation of the legislation and it's intent. I have to admit, it was kinda funny to catch you comment regarding 'acting outside their jurisdictions are placing themselves and their agencies at grave liability risks', and one of the talking points from the LEAA in support of the bill being 'continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction'

This bill obviously benefits me, but I hope above all else that first it was a clean bill with no AWB bagage hanging off it.

As do I, as do I......

Secondly, when your enemy is starting to break, you chase them down and put steel between their shoulder blades. The antis are begining to break. Now is the time to fix bayonets and use HR 218 to build support for national right to carry for all CHL holders. HR 218 took 12 years and a lot of dedication. National right to carry for CHLs isn't going to be any easier.

A good starting point for the arguement would be a look at the "shall issue" states that already have reciprocity laws in effect and the statistical results since enactment.

Use HR 218 to build support for national right to carry? For that, HR 218 is meaningless...unless one is completely blind to the way that the government perceives the social divide between civilian and public servant. It has been asked, time and again, on more boards than I can count, and still has not had an answer......what exemptions that have been provided to police officers has EVER been passed down to the citizens? Bring up HR218 as a stepping stone in a political arena, and there will be no end of clamoring over the points that have already been hashed out in this and other threads........HR218 is about COPS, COPS who are better trained, more trustworthy, and in more danger than citizens. With HR218, there will not be a need for citizens to carry as there will be police officers who will do so, and as we all know it is the job of the police to deal with these things. Even better, the LEAA has already stated (or so I have come across during other HR 218 threads) that it has no interest in assisting in the pursuit of national CCW reciprocity for citizens....so even the people who pushed forth HR 218 recognize there is no need for citizens to carry.

We didn't lose anything today, but we sure as hell didn't gain what some people want to believe we did. No, national CCW will not be easy, but to think that HR218 is a step in that direction is rather Pollyannish......

Shootcraps
July 8, 2004, 06:48 PM
I am not cop-bashing. My brother is a cop and I think it's great.

I have great respect for cops, and great contempt for cops who break the law. Especially when they think their badge will protect them from being arrested in another jurisdiction. Nobody has answered my question yet:

How many leo's are prepared to arrest another leo?

H.R. 218 and S. 253 give off-duty, as well as retired, police officers Right To Carry reciprocity throughout the nation in order to help prevent crime in our communities. All too often, current and retired officers come upon situations in which they can prevent violent crime and save lives. It is common sense they continue to have the tool of their trade available to serve and protect.

H.R. 218 and S. 253 will allow tens of thousands of additionally equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no cost to taxpayers.

This is not what HR218 is for. It's for their own personal protection. Not so they can be cops 24/7. How many leo's want to be on duty 24/7, everywhere they go (even on vacation) and not get paid for it? And what is the stress going to be like if they are in Condition Red 24/7?

I'm no legal expert, but I wonder if the states will be able to challenge this as part of their jurisdiction.

I still don't believe a necessity for this bill has been shown. They can get in line with me and apply for CCW. If it's a state that doesn't have shall-issue, and there are verified threats against them or their families then most states allow CCW for that.

F4GIB
July 8, 2004, 07:10 PM
Special deals are never extended to all the people. No LEO exception in history has led to a loosening of restrictions on ordinary folks. None, Never. This one won't either. If you think it will, you've been fooled again.

lostone1413
July 8, 2004, 07:12 PM
I just talked to Senator McCain and Senator Kyl office. I told them that it just makes a special class of person now. One thing I learned from both office is the bill is now coming up again were you can't sue the gun manufacture if the gun is used in a crime but this time it has the AWB as an amendmend. My money says the many supporters of the 2nd amendment have been sold out for the sake of the few. Watch and see.

El Rojo
July 8, 2004, 07:43 PM
Man, there sure is a lot of skepticism and general negative attitudes in our camp. Cops get to carry across state lines now. How does it hurt non-leo any? Sure they get to do something I don't get to do, big deal. Now lets start working on national CCW reciprocity and maybe I can carry out of the PRK and not have to stick my Glock in the trunk. We can either complain and gripe about this or write the LEAA and tell them to help us since we helped them. I guess it is easier to talk about police states and complain than try and be positive and try to make something good for everyone come out of this.

Kharn
July 8, 2004, 07:51 PM
Hopefully W will stick to his request for a clean S1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms, the bill I think lostone1413 is talking about). :uhoh:

El Rojo:
Yeah, I've noticed the same around here. African Americans didnt get all their rights recognized over night, it took years, we're probably going to have a fight of similar magnitude to get our rights. Its not going to be one magic bill that does it all (nationwide CCW, '86 ban eliminated, import ban lifted, etc etc), it'll still be baby steps for a long time to come.

Kharn

lostone1413
July 8, 2004, 07:56 PM
From CA. I see think they look at gun control different and allot of other things to compared to how we look at them in AZ. Why should someone retired be able to carry in say Illinois when people who live their can't? Want to bet this went through with the agreement to pass the AWB? It does nothing but make a special class of people. See if the AWB don't go through this time. Then a few will benefit at the expense of the majority of the 2nd amendment backers.

Cabby
July 9, 2004, 12:15 PM
:mad: Those who think this is a good thing just don't get it. There is now NO reason for law enforcement to support CCW by lowly citizens, let alone National CCW. We have lost allies in this fight, because now now that they've got theirs, why should they fight for us.

Question: Why don't cops fight for relaxing speed limits?
Answer: Speed limits don't apply to them. (Un-professional courtesy)

Question: Why won't cops fight for National CCW?
Answer: It provides them with nothing they don't already have.:banghead:

greyhound
July 9, 2004, 08:10 PM
How'd the Anti's let this one slip past them?


They usually are Ok with "guns only in the hands of trained professionals" (i.e. police and military).

Plus, like the John Kerry "we don't want to take your hunting or target rifles" types, its a good way to say you support the 2A.

El Rojo
July 10, 2004, 02:18 PM
Cabby your entire post is based on unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. Lets look at them.

There is now NO reason for law enforcement to support CCW by lowly citizens, let alone National CCW. We have lost allies in this fight, because now that they've got theirs, why should they fight for us.That also means there is no reason for them to be in the NRA or any other group right? But wait, there are many law enforcement officers who are. Maybe, just maybe there are still many law enforcement officers out there who are not selfish and self-serving and they actually care about the Constitution and liberty and they will continue to fight for what is right for everyone? Nah, according to Cabby it is impossible. I mean he used that opinion poll and article to back up his claim. Oh wait he didn't. Lets look back at blackdragon's post at the front end of this thread.

I was fairly undecided on if this was a good thing or not, until I browsed the LEAA web site. Keep in mind these guys successfully lobbied 218 through.

Article titles: Time Running Out for the Clinton Gun and Magazine Ban
It was a bad law from the start...

Cops versus Gun Control
The simple truth in undeniable: rank-and-file cops oppose gun control.

Self-Defense and the Armed Citizen
...Find out how gun control is killing law-abiding citizens...Hmmmm strange, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America is producing articles that deal with issues that LEOs are already immune from and actually talk about all of our rights? It must be a dirty trick because they don't have to care anymore.

Why don't cops fight for relaxing speed limits?Again, I really liked the article you linked us to stating that most law enforcement are against relaxing speed limits because the laws don't apply to them. Oh wait, again you failed to provide any supporting evidence. Now this is just a thought, maybe law enforcement is against relaxing speed laws because they are tired of shoveling up brains off of the interstate and highways because people are going way too fast! Sure lets live in a libertarian world where everyone just does as they please right? We don't need any speed limits. Until a inexperienced teenage driver plows through a crosswalk full of children and you kid is dead. Don't bother coming back to me with how liberal I sound and how by my same reasoning we should ban all guns for the children. There is very little correlation between using a gun more or faster and causing accidents and we know that combining fast driving with other distractions increases accident rates. Just in case you don't believe me here are two articles supporting my position.
http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/defensive/driving.html. Well it seems driving fast is just one part of the more complex of inattention at the wheel.
http://www.dot.state.az.us/ROADS/traffic/speed.htm. Speed doesn't kill, but speed limits do help save lives.

Why won't cops fight for National CCW?Again a right to the point article that summed up the law enforcement professionals disdain for armed americans. Oh, sorry, that is sarcasm again, you provided no evidence to back up your opinion.

http://www.txchia.org/artslat6.htm. A cop who wants national concealed carry reciprocity, not to be confused with the recently passed HR 218 for LEOs only. I am sure if we contact him now he will say, "Screw you guys, we got ours."

Just go look at the LEAA Website (http://www.leaa.org/). These guys are on our side. As far as the big police union organizations, of course they aren't fighting for us, they are liberal police unions. The general consensus remains, rank and file cops are generally conservative and they like guns in the hands of citizens. This hysteria about how cops are now going to abandon us because they got theirs is ludicrous. I wish I could say the same about gun owners in regards to their opinions about California. The most support I get out of non-Californian's is "move". However, I won't make the mistake of labeling all of non-Californian's that way and I know there are people out there who believe in what is right and will stand against what is wrong even if it has no direct effect on their rights. According to so many of the hysterical around here, law enforcement is for some reason exempt from caring about anyone but themselves.

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