Please explain in rational terms how the national CCW for police is bad?


PDA






Das Pferd
July 7, 2004, 11:09 PM
This is how I see it. If there is a national law that states police have the right to CCW even when off duty in other states to protect themselves, couldnt someone argue down the road that a person showing the same training and clean background should also be allowed to carry nationwide? And other arguments along these lines.

If you enjoyed reading about "Please explain in rational terms how the national CCW for police is bad?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
July 7, 2004, 11:14 PM
The law is vile because it grants special privileges to a certain class of citizens.

How would you feel if physicists were exempt from speed limits? How would you feel if teachers received special tax breaks? How would you like a special law that grants artists extra votes in elections?

Rights don't ever trickle down from élite groups to the commoners. Someone could argue this; someone could argue that; someone could argue fifty-seventeen and a half ways from Sunday—but no court in the nation is going to rule in favor of the commoners when it comes to our Second Amendment civil rights.

deej
July 7, 2004, 11:18 PM
Police organizations, as opposed to individual police officers, generally oppose civilian (sic) firearm ownership.

Any incentive for rank and file LEOs to campaign for civilian (sic) CCW has just been eliminated.

Assault weapons, after all, are legal for LEOs to possess. Do you see any LEOs making demands for civilian (sic) AW ownership?

VaniB.
July 7, 2004, 11:48 PM
I don't have a jealous streak running through my bones, so it's not a real issue for me. No skin off my nose either way.

It's a good indicator though and encouraging how concealed carry in the majority of states has changed attitudes throughout the country. After all, this bill was dead for years!

Das Pferd
July 7, 2004, 11:48 PM
How would you feel if teachers received special tax breaks?

They do. There are many laws that group citizens into classes and then give them special rights. Not saying its right.

Assault weapons, after all, are legal for LEOs to possess. Do you see any LEOs making demands for civilian (sic) AW ownership?

Your right I didn't think about that.

Hypnogator
July 7, 2004, 11:59 PM
The only arguments I've seen against this bill boil down to, "If I can't do it, then they shouldn't be able to, either." I'm really disappointed in some of the posts I've seen when this bill has been discussed.

IMHO, this bill doesn't create a "super" class, it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen, and, because of threats to themselves and their families from those they arrest, have a greater actual need to be armed. True, many posters on this forum are better trained than the average officer, but the level of threat against them just isn't anywhere near as great as it is against active and retired law enforcement officers.

I view this as an incremental step in national CCW reciprocity, and, hopefully, the eventual elimination of a licensing requirement for CCW.

deej
July 8, 2004, 12:05 AM
I view this as an incremental step in national CCW reciprocity, and, hopefully, the eventual elimination of a licensing requirement for CCW.



So you're saying that passing a new CCW law will eventually result in the elimination of all CCW laws?

Also, can you please give us some examples of when granting peace officers privileges denied to ordinary citizens has resulted in the eventual expansion of those privileges to others?

Mulliga
July 8, 2004, 12:15 AM
it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen...[and] have a greater actual need to be armed

POINT #1 - Police are better trained in the use of weapons than "civilians."

Think about it. While many police officers are shooters, others merely shoot just because they have to. In most cases, police work involves relatively little shooting. Compare this to an average THR member, who puts down a few hundred rounds downrange a month at least. Why should the law treat the police better?

POINT #2 - Cops have a greater "need" to be armed (as if "need" had anything to do with owning or carrying firearms)

Cops, by and large, don't carry large amounts of money. They don't guard celebrities or politicians. They don't need to stop crimes when they are off-duty (and even when on-duty, they have no responsibility for your personal safety).

but the level of threat against them just isn't anywhere near as great as it is against active and retired law enforcement officers.

POINT #3 - Cops are threatened by crooks off-duty.

Again, IMO this is a logical fallacy. I'd wager that the average cop is a decent-sized man or woman in pretty good shape, with some experience at unarmed fighting. Compare this to a 19-year old female college student, or an 87 year old grandmother, or a single father with two young children - who needs more protection?

=============

National CCW for retired and off-duty LEOs is okay, but it does create disparity.

Coronach
July 8, 2004, 12:28 AM
They don't need to stop crimes when they are off-duty (and even when on-duty, they have no responsibility for your personal safety).INCORRECT.

LEOs in Ohio (and, I daresay, most everywhere) have a duty to act on and off duty when confronted with various types of crimes. The whole "no responsibility for your safety" argument stems from the fact if you are harmed by crime you cannot sue the department for failing to protect you in a general sense. If you have an actual, live cop standing there watching you get killed and he does nothing, well, thats a different matter entirely.

Mike

citizen
July 8, 2004, 12:49 AM
IMHO, what is needed first is a national reciprocity amongst states....(like a driver's license); THEN if individual states exempt their leo's from ccw requirements,or not; they can still opt to obtain one privately. BUT - first things first.....just mho.

TheFederalistWeasel
July 8, 2004, 12:53 AM
Can a Police Officer offer up an opinion w/o being hanged at dawn simple because I carry a badge and a gun?

LEO attitudes towards vary from point to point in the US of A, come down south, here in GA and most cops (those of us who work for a living) not your rank and file upper desk jockeys have no desire to see a gun ban or confiscation or the abolishment of CCW etc…

Why?

Well I have plenty of family members who are not cops and therefore are not afforded the privileges that I am regarding off-duty carry, but crime can hit them just as fast as it can hit me, what’s to say a criminal how wants at me, but knows I carry 24/7 goes after my loved one’s?

Go up to NYC or out to LA and I’m sure it’s completely different, because of the culture.

As far as LEO’s being able to possess Assault Weapons, I’d wish you’d tell that to my Chief! I’ve got a Mossy 500 12ga in the trunk and 10 rounds of buckshot, no belt fed fire breather there!

Hell I cannot even buy post ban hi-cap mags for any of my guns let alone AW’s!

Everything I’ve bought gun related since becoming a cop has been pre-ban and semi-auto and I had to go thru the same background check as you.

Pilgrim
July 8, 2004, 12:58 AM
Assault weapons, after all, are legal for LEOs to possess. Do you see any LEOs making demands for civilian (sic) AW ownership?

The only LEOs in the PDRK that own AWs owned them before Roberti-Roos and SB-23 and registered them before the deadlines. Any ownership of AWs by LEOs in the PDRK now is done on department letterhead and the LEO has to surrender the weapon to his department when he retires.

Pilgrim

Telperion
July 8, 2004, 12:59 AM
We've heard a lot of claims against this bill (soon to be law, it seems) on the grounds of equal protection. I want to criticize it from a different viewpoint: it is (in my opinion) an abuse of the interstate commerce clause. Some people in a previous thread were under the impression that this bill operates under Article IV, section I ("full faith and credit") of the U.S. Constitution. This is not the case; here is the language of the bill (emphasis is mine):

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

So you see, this bill is not about having states recognize officers' carry rights. In actuality, it is the Federal government forcibly overriding and superceding state carry laws. Maybe I am just dense, and don't like the current Supreme Court's canon on the ICC, but I don't really see how the mere carriage of a gun substantially effects interstate and foreign commerce. Although the police help maintain civil order so commerce can proceed in a well-regulated manner, a police officer travelling to a different state is just a private citizen, and may only act in private self-defense, with few exceptions. So while I am glad this is giving some police officers what they want, I hope they realize it is only helping to expand the reach of the Federal government's powers.

atek3
July 8, 2004, 01:08 AM
<ramble>

Ahh, constitutionality. Ron Paul argued against the federal Immunity for Gun Dealers act because his copy of the constitution didn't have the "federal government may tell the states what court cases are and are not acceptable" clause that the current .Gov uses. On the basis of the flagrant misreading of the ICC about 3/4 of laws passed these days are unconstitutional. Was it Rothbard who said, (i'm butchering the quote but...) "The founding fathers saw the interstate commerce clause as basically creating an 'American Free Trade Zone' in which states couldn't erect trade barriers against the products of other states."


atek3


</ramble>

deej
July 8, 2004, 01:20 AM
Any ownership of AWs by LEOs in the PDRK now is done on department letterhead and the LEO has to surrender the weapon to his department when he retires.


Any ownership of AWs by non-LEOs in the "PDRK" now is...oh yeah, NOT POSSIBLE. Silly me.

Giving cops special rights is a great advance for the rest of us!

F4GIB
July 8, 2004, 01:29 AM
Previously posted: "If you have an actual, live cop standing there watching you get killed and he does nothing, well, thats a different matter entirely."

Nope.

Neither the department nor the nearby officer can be sued by the citizen who is not protected nor served.

The officer might be subject to employer discipline if there is a departmental rule that requires action but that's the end of it.

tyme
July 8, 2004, 01:58 AM
As long as police don't have national ccw rights, the police lobby has something to gain by supporting real federal ccw for all citizens. Once police get national ccw, that incentive goes away.

I cannot support anything that exacerbates "us vs them." It seems fairly clear to me that national ccw for police does exactly that. If LEOs want nat'l ccw, they should fight for that right for all citizens, and I'll be happy to fight for their right to carry -- as citizens.

Supporting laws that unfairly discriminate by class is dangerous, no matter what the intentions may be. I simply won't do it. Sorry.

firearms_instructor
July 8, 2004, 02:39 AM
We're supposed to enjoy equal peotection under the law. Oops, there have been a thousand and one infringements.

I for one do not favor giving the police any more special favor/privilege/treatment than they already have, but especially not this. As long as "officer safety" trumps MY right to keep and bear arms, screw 'em.

Josey
July 8, 2004, 02:44 AM
Problem. A hick deputy sheriff (barney Fife) is in NYC. He sees a fight/scuffle and "gets involved". He spots a firearm on one participant, draws and fires his weapon dry. The BG is wearing a wristband, orange for example. This BG is a UC LEO and was arresting a dangerous felon when the "good samaritan" deputy comes along and misinterprets the circumstances. OOPS! Another example might be a LAPD officer on vacation at Lake Tahoe. He sees a crime in progress and jumps in armed. He shoots a BG. The local prosecutor doesn't like LAPD officers shooting the local citizens and hauls the LAPD officer before a grand jury hoping for at least manslaughter. The need for better and more training is what I see. Agencies have differing standards of executing use of deadly force. POST certification doesn't mean that all areas of policy are interchangable by covenant.

Boats
July 8, 2004, 02:48 AM
Cops are civilians. That ends the inquiry from my perspective. There is nothing general in nature about police officers that merits special rights as a class as opposed to the rest of the citizenry.

Almost all of the worst cases told of spray and pray, dog murder, and other such "highly trained" antics come from cop shops. It ain't exactly Super Troopers out there, but sometimes the individual buffoonery comes close.

JohnBT
July 8, 2004, 07:34 AM
They put their lives on the line everyday and make a few enemies by locking up bad guys.

I think they need to carry a gun everywhere they go.

(I also think I need to carry a gun everywhere I go, so let's keep working to change those laws too.)

John

Hawkmoon
July 8, 2004, 10:31 AM
IMHO, this bill doesn't create a "super" class, it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen , and, because of threats to themselves and their families from those they arrest, have a greater actual need to be armed. True, many posters on this forum are better trained than the average officer, but the level of threat against them just isn't anywhere near as great as it is against active and retired law enforcement officers.

I certainly don't buy the better trained argument. Even you don't -- as soon as you acknowledge that even ONE "civilian" is better trained than ONE police officer, that argument becomes invalid.

As to the argument that police officers are "on call" 24/7 even when off-duty ... that's simply not the case. Correct me if you know of exceptions, but to the best of my knowledge an LEO is an LEO only within the state or jurisdiction in which he is sworn. Once he/she crosses the state line, he/she is no more an LEO than my grandmother. (Federal LEOs don't count. You already have national carry.)

As to the argument that an LEO is "likely" to encounter a revenge seeking thug while on vacation ... gimme a break. The odds are much greater that the average couple vacationing at Disney World will be attacked in the parking lot of their motel.

To me it all boils down to the point already mentioned: incentive. It should be interstate recognition of ALL CCW, or none. I don't have a problem working with LEOs to get it for all of us. I DO have a problem with their saying "Help us get it today and we'll support you getting it tomorrow ... errr, next week... errrr, next year .... ah, ummm." Once they get it, thery have no incentive to to help us, and we need it just as much as they do. And since they aren't LEOs outside of their own states, we have exactly as much justification for wanting our permits to be recognized as they do. Outside of their home states, LEOs are nothing but citizens.

txgho1911
July 8, 2004, 11:00 AM
Us vs Them
It just will not work for us.

From another thread and LEAA looks like this is another one on the books.
We all know George will sign.
I would sugjest that since this is done now everyone accept this and act possitively and proactively support it.

As been pointed out in many threads here and elsewhere there are parts of hr218 that may easily be struck down. That should not stop any of us from the ability to keep working for the same or similar goals.
If you think this is not fair. I tell a pair of 7 year old kids at least once a week that life is not fair.
In the end we only want this enumerated recognized right to be just that. A right to everyone in this country. I don't want the fed keeping up with ownership and carry status of myself and everyone else. I wish we did not have the states keeping tabs on this right as well. We are not there yet.

To get there we may end up personaly promoting thos candidates we support. Some of us may end up needing to get into office. We may have some form of national registry to carry nationwide.
Or would you rather we had a federally mandated recognition of home or out of state permits. This could of course force some states to legislate laws and policy to regulate the state. Maybe protection for individuals so King Daley cannot pack his dungeons.

JohnBT
July 8, 2004, 11:01 AM
"The odds are much greater that the average couple vacationing at Disney World will be attacked in the parking lot of their motel." So they need to carry a gun, too. Right? Okay, aren't we working on it? Vote. Join organizations. Lobby. Politic.

The odds of drawing a royal flush are much greater...but I've had one. What's your point? If an off-duty officer is accosted you want them to be unarmed? That's what it sounds like.

Sometimes when I read posts here I imagine I hear these same little voices in my head going "Whaaaa, whaaaa, whaaaa" and the sound of little feet stamping in indignation and anger. "If they can, why can't I?" "I don't like the rules so I'm taking my ball and going home."

And the favorite..."Life's not FAIR. Whaaaaa."

John

woerm
July 8, 2004, 11:15 AM
Standing W and Mulliga

The law is vile because it grants special privileges to a certain class of citizens.


read ammd 14 and try to wrap this peice of fertilizer around "equal protection"

george_co
July 8, 2004, 11:15 AM
Call me wishy washy, a fence rider, undecided or whatever, but I swing back and forth on this issue.

Except for LEO's in cities like St. Louis, where they are right on the border with another state, once a cop gets 200 miles away from his/her jurisdiction they are in no more danger than I am statistically, and better trained (at our expense) to avoid/handle the danger if it should come.

Once they leave their jurisdiction, and especially their state, they can really only respond to the most obvious of crimes, for example a man beating/stabbing a women. Basically, the same as I or any other citizen.

I don't like it because it does set aside LEO's as being superior than other citizens. I believe in many jurisdictions it is getting to be a real us vs them mentality by both the LEO's and the citizens. That kind of attidude is very detrimental to society as a whole. The more you separate LEO's from the citizen, the more the citizens will view LEO's as JBT's. Especially, as more and more officers and departments adopt military style clothing and shave their heads.

I also believe the argument that we might be able to use the granting of this right in our future fights for our rights. The proof will be in the pudding if LEAA and other police associations fail to support citizen ccw fights in the future.

However, I really don't like the federal government stepping all over states rights. In our Constitution the states are superior to the Federal Govt. in almost all things and I believe the Feds have yet again stepped all over the States.

There you have it. I don't like the law, I think that they should be allowed to carry the same as the rest of us. I am glad they are carrying but I am concerned about the impact on society and the interaction between the LEO community and citizens. And, I am concerned that an LEO that uses his gun outside of his jurisdiction is going to be hung out to dry thinking that he was protected the same as if he was at home.

You asked for it, you got it.

Be Safe, Whoever you are!
George

FPrice
July 8, 2004, 11:23 AM
National CCW for police (by itself) is not a bad idea.

However, coupled with a lack of a similar law for civilians, it is bad because of most of the reasons set out so far.

SRYnidan
July 8, 2004, 11:26 AM
I don't think the idea of more armed trained folks is bad.

I do think that it is not the Federal governments place to dictate what the states must or must not do.
This is like saying you like the whip only when you have your hand on the stock and not your back under the lash).

I don't see how this can pass the commerce clause test (which congress is no longer even pretending to pay lip service to).

I do feel that this widens the us vs. them gap and I don't believe that the police unions will not recipricate our support.

txgho1911
July 8, 2004, 11:42 AM
Rank and file patroll officers to speak up when they are missrepresented by the labor unions and administrators.

This could be an oportunity for officers to lead the way on helping NYC or Chicago loosen the grip on the fantasy. Clear the minds in those state capitals where delusions cloud reality.

Coronach
July 8, 2004, 11:51 AM
read ammd 14 and try to wrap this peice of fertilizer around "equal protection"Which is exactly why I both balk at the general idea of the bill and yet support it anyway. Only so much can go on before even the Supreme Court has to acknowledge the elephant in the room. I think this is also why the antis are so vehemently opposed to this- they recognize it as the wedge that it is.

Mike

txgho1911
July 8, 2004, 11:58 AM
Do you think this hr218 was a sneaky trick on the left? Not sure of how they voted as in hands or voice.
It was braught up after the primary issue was tabled for the day.

Kharn
July 8, 2004, 12:06 PM
ghobrien:
It passed under Unanimous Consent, which means no-one in the chamber objected to the bill, so there was no vote tally.

This helps our side by getting it passed without a media circus, but it also helps the antis because the police unions cant use a 'no'-vote against them (the antis probably saw it was going to pass anyway and didnt want to upset the police by forcing a vote).

Kharn

txgho1911
July 8, 2004, 12:10 PM
Hey folks I see the curtain moving.

Glock-A-Roo
July 8, 2004, 12:25 PM
IMHO, this bill doesn't create a "super" class, it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen, and, because of threats to themselves and their families from those they arrest, have a greater actual need to be armed.

I've been to a pretty significant number of high-end firearms training classes over the years. Without question, the most ass-backwards & lame firearms handling was done by the LEO members of said classes. Most were very mediocre shots, at best.

The only time I ever saw a man point the muzzle of a rifle into the face of a person 2 feet away was by a SWAT operator in my county. He was showing off to a cute 20-year old blonde student at a community college.

Should your internet posting privileges, derived from the 1st Amendment, be curtailed because you don't "need" them as much as I do? No? Then don't even THINK about limiting my 2nd Amendment rights because you think I don't "need" them as much as a cop.

fix
July 8, 2004, 12:34 PM
IMHO, this bill doesn't create a "super" class, it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen

I'll make sure to advise every former Marine, Ranger, and the one SEAL I know that they are less qualified than rank and file cops to handle weapons. I dont personally know any SF guys, but if you run into one, be sure to let him know too. :rolleyes:

Coronach
July 8, 2004, 01:09 PM
I've been to a pretty significant number of high-end firearms training classes over the years. Without question, the most ass-backwards & lame firearms handling was done by the LEO members of said classes. Most were very mediocre shots, at best.I dunno. I'll counter this by stating flatly that every ND I have ever encountered first-hand was done by non-LEOs, and some of them involved copious amounts of blood.

Simple fact of the matter is that cops in general probably have a better level of training than the population as a whole, but are also pretty far behind dedicated shooters, of both the cop and non-cop varieties. this makes generalizations across the board pretty much useless.

The 'training' argument is a side issue. You will always have poorly trained people, both cop and non-cop. You will always have some people with excellent training, both cop and non-cop. Non-issue.

Mike

Josh
July 8, 2004, 01:34 PM
Has anybody read the whole text of this bill?
Does it define the word 'Retired'?

Could a fella who was a Poopfinger County Sherrif's Deputy eleventyought years ago for 18 months before quitting to go back to playing bingo full-time be considered 'Retired'?

Just thinking that'd be a heck of a way to get nationwide concealed carry for us proles.

Start your own town somewthere in Poopfinger County, swear in anybody who wants to & the next day they retire with nationwide carry rights.

Kharn
July 8, 2004, 01:47 PM
Josh:
Click here and do a bill search on 'HR215' (http://thomas.loc.gov)
Here's the definition:
`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual 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;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
Looks like your plan would be DOA, 15 years required. :(

Kharn

tyme
July 8, 2004, 03:34 PM
JohnBT, sorry to pick on you but you seem to strongly support the bill...

Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?

mrapathy2000
July 8, 2004, 03:53 PM
The law is vile because it grants special privileges to a certain class of citizens.

How would you feel if physicists were exempt from speed limits? How would you feel if teachers received special tax breaks? How would you like a special law that grants artists extra votes in elections?

Rights don't ever trickle down from élite groups to the commoners. Someone could argue this; someone could argue that; someone could argue fifty-seventeen and a half ways from Sunday-but no court in the nation is going to rule in favor of the commoners when it comes to our Second Amendment civil rights.

keyword standing wolf says is "citizens" not civilians. its key to me because in the state I live in we already have laws that grant a group of citizens the authority and immunity to possess offensive weapons(class3 weapons)

police are citizens just like the rest of us. in a thread recently discussing 2nd amendment I decided to look up definitions for the various words that make up the 2nd amendment.
Arms came out defined Instruments or weapons of offense or defense original intent I dont know would think so.

some states have laws that say something similar to All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
(Iowa article 1 section 6 laws uniform)

people/citizens should have firearms and ccw permits regardless of race,gender,wealth,occupation and social status.

cropcirclewalker
July 8, 2004, 04:30 PM
`(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; Is gonna get old in a hurry to some old LEOs.

It sounds to me like they gotta keep going back every 12 months to get qualified. MO's "Permission to excercise a right" law only makes us renew every 3 years. Some states even 5.

Congress knew that this law wouldn't make it through the courts. I am suprised that they didn't just leave this part out.

"at the expense of the individual" I guess that means they even have to pay for their own ammunition.:D

F4GIB
July 8, 2004, 06:15 PM
Typical LEO response from another board:

Originally posted by Jesterxxx
I CAN AND YOU CAN'T..I CAN AND YOU CAN'T
:neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:

The quoted post is a perfect example of the reason this is a bad law. It's the same rationale Bill Clinton gave for demanding a BJ from Monica Lewinski -"because I could." Jesterxxx doesn't seem to be sufficiently mature to be trusted on the streets of my town with a gun. But, since he's a "cop" somewhere, he can carry everywhere.

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.

alan
July 8, 2004, 06:24 PM
Re your desire for a "rational explaination", how about the following: The EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW business, whioch I believe is to be found in The Constitution.

Bainx
July 8, 2004, 07:54 PM
1. They [cops] work for me
2. I read news articles all the time where some police chief [or head of national police chiefs org.] is against me having assault rifles, SKS or whatever
3. It is a war of opposing views. The elites aginst the commoners.
4. Their weapons are always one notch above what I am able to obtain legally. Why is that?

It is for these reasons I conclude, that they must be no more priviledged than me.

CZ-100
July 8, 2004, 08:43 PM
by Tyme
JohnBT, sorry to pick on you but you seem to strongly support the bill...

Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?...

I was thinking the same thing...

jimbo
July 8, 2004, 09:26 PM
I am AGAINST this privelege for ex-LEOs, which does smack of classism.

However, I would MUCH rather see mandatory CCW eligibility for all former US military veterans. After all, they have all the weapons & combat training of LEOs plus they served their nation. I'd be for that in a heartbeat if it wouldn't separate gun owners even more than we currently are, which it would. So all in all, RKBA should be a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for ALL. Period.

Coronach
July 8, 2004, 10:55 PM
JohnBT, sorry to pick on you but you seem to strongly support the bill...

Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?I'm not john, but allow me:

Yes. It absolutely should. That would be great.

















Why?

Because that is an equal protection clause slam dunk. This is the whole point.

El Tejon, in another thread, stated that the law likes precedents and the law likes analogies. The more this whole CCW thing starts to resemble drivers licenses, the better...full faith and credit? And look...there is already a precedent for national CCW...we have national CCW of LEOs...why not national reciprocity of CCW permit holders? Hmmmm...

Will some of the allies of this bill fail to support CCW for all? Of course some will. But it is still a wedge. Anything that sets the precedent of "guns allowed" and "nationwide" is a threat to the antis. Why do you think they hate it so much? DiFi et al are generally not in the business of taking guns away from cops.

Mike

Telperion
July 8, 2004, 11:03 PM
As I have taken pains to point out, this law has nothing to do with "full faith and credit". More like the Feds saying "shut up and take your medicine" to the States.

We already have the precedents of "guns allowed" and "nationwide": the government is allowed to have guns, nationwide. This law does nothing to recognize the right of the People.

DBK
July 8, 2004, 11:21 PM
Actually F4GIB, I think the lad over at Glock Talk was pulling your leg. The post seemed to have been taken as a joke by all, except you.

As for H.R. 218, I don't see a down side. In fact I beleive it may be the start of Nation-wide CCW recognition.

Harve Curry
July 8, 2004, 11:21 PM
1). The police lobbying groups are historically anti-gun and will support Kerry for President.

2). It creates an elite, special group of people. It is unAmerican.

3). They won't have to pay for their CCW same as we do?
Their's won't expire .

4). LEO lobbying groups are for the police, they are not going to follow up on this and lobby for citizens. When it ever does come up for equal rights for citizens the LEO lobbying groups will vote against citizen carry.

answerguy
July 9, 2004, 09:13 AM
Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?

How does it work when you do this in the following sentence?
Change the word 'pharmacist' to 'white person'

Only a pharmacist can prescribe medicine.

Coronach
July 9, 2004, 11:55 AM
3). They won't have to pay for their CCW same as we do?
Their's won't expire.This is a side issue, but, if I'm reading the law correctly, not quite.

1. Most 'paid' for it by going through academy, often at their own expense (though sometimes not). Most police full training courses run upwards of $2k.

2. It does expire: if they quit prior to 15 lears of work, it does not apply to them. Also, if they fail to shoot their annual qualification, it expires.

But, as I said, this is a side issue. I just like to keep facts straight.

Mike

tyme
July 9, 2004, 06:36 PM
answerguy, so because pharmacists have exclusive right to dispense medications, I should sit on my hands while cops are given an exclusive right to exercise another constitutional right in the 12 or so states that don't allow ccw? Why don't they have to get licenses and pay processing fees like we do? Pharmacists have an exclusive right. Cops just have their rights extended beyond those of mere citizens. I don't think that alone makes drug regulation legitimate, but if there were really a public policy reason for denying a right to the proles, I'd think they'd make sure the proles couldn't exercise that right at all. That's not the case with firearms in what, 38 states?

The equal protection argument is not so good here (i.e. it is not likely to be accepted by the courts). The 14th and 15th amendments say nothing about discrimination based on occupation. The additional classes like women and the disabled, among others, are only in the Civil Rights Act, and can't be used as clear evidence of an equal protection violation. I very much doubt that any court would look at a law applying to police officers and declare it an equal protection violation. Federal agents have been able to ccw for quite a while, and nobody's yet succeeded in having that declared an equal protection violation. Why will this be any different? If minority classes were discriminated against for employment as LEOs, that would be an equal protection problem, and the ccw issue might be a transitive/proxy equal-protection violation.

artherd
July 9, 2004, 10:30 PM
it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen...

Oh really? Some LE are good friends of mine and great shots, but even they agree they've met a signifigant portion of officers that we wouldn't trust with string, let alone an M-16.


[quote] [and] have a greater actual need to be arme

Really? With backup and radios and in-car cameras? Versus me unarmed and withought backup or radio? Says whom?

mountainclmbr
July 9, 2004, 10:50 PM
What am I missing???

Equal protection under the law means:

1. The state has total power.

2. Everyone has the same rights unless they break a law that harms some one else.

3. Citizens have all rights and law enforcement should summon help from a citizen to have access to a firearm.


I would vote number 2, but number 3 would be my second choice.

The LEO CCW places those who serve above those who pay (#1). I am a free, non-crimminal working man. I see corruption in local government and LEO. Placing LEO in this position scares the hell out of me. How do you spell "POLICE STATE"? Why do liberal politicians want to disarm law-abiding citizens? I look at police states like Germany, The Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam... and I know exactly why.

To LEO in Boulder, CO, when you see the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers, do you think why should we not free Boulder first?

El Rojo
July 10, 2004, 02:40 PM
I didn't feel like reading through this whole thing because I had a epiphany. Everyone listen carefully to what I am about to say.

What choice did law enforcement have in this whole issue? They knew that if citizens with CCWs had been given the right to carry nation wide, those CCW supporters would have got what they wanted and said to hell with law-enforcement. Basically the police knew that CCW holders would have abandoned them once CCW holders got theirs. According to this link (http://www.leaa.org/218/greet106.html), Rep. Bill McCollum attempted to attach a national CCW rider to this bill. Did law enforcment oppose this? Of course not. The Brady Camp did and the whole thing was going to go down in flames thanks to their rhetoric. So what did law enforcement do? Exactly what the selfish CCW holders would have done, they looked out for their own interests. The cops knew if the CCW people could drop the law enforcment aspects of the bill, they would selfishly get national reciprocity for themselves and they leave law enforcement high and dry.

So for those of you who oppose this based solely on your belief that now law enforcement no longer has a need to stand by us, what did you expect? I mean what makes rank and file cops any different than us? They knew if we had beaten them to the national reciprocity, we would have abandonded them because we are a bunch of selfish "I've got mine" types. I guess they could have withdrawn the bill when our amendment got dropped, but that isn't what selfish "elite citizens" do. The same reason CCW holders throughout the country don't care if you live in a non CCW area. They have theirs. I mean look at all of our THR members who could care less about California. The most sympathy I hear out of anyone is a simple "move". So hell, if you don't have a CCW, then move. If you are not in an elite special class job, then "move" jobs. I mean after all, life is all about me and to hell with everyone else if they are not as priviledged as me.

F4GIB
July 10, 2004, 05:11 PM
El Roho posted: [LE] knew that if citizens with CCWs had been given the right to carry nationwide, those CCW supporters would have got what they wanted and said to hell with law-enforcement.

How exactly did LE know this? Because the earth is flat?

For a small fee any LEO in a CCW state can get a carry permit and then have exactly the same reciprocity rights as "them" civilians. The reverse is not true.

In Minnesota the law treats retired LEO exactly the same as everyone else except they can skip the required training if they apply within one year of retirement. How selfish of the civilians pushing Right to Carry to have included those retired LEO's.

P. S. There is no liability limitation or restriction in H.R. 218. If you draw or shoot, you are on your own. Furthermore, H.R. 218 does not make you a "police officer" in that other state. You are just an armed civilian. Do you know the use of force rules that apply to non-police officers in your vacation state?

tyme
July 10, 2004, 08:36 PM
El Rojo, that doesn't sound like much of an argument. It sounds like an excuse which does nothing to address the fact that police should not have an exclusive right to ccw in all 50 states.

The difference between the current situation and the hypothetical you outlined is that because police are in the public sector, being greedy and getting whatever legislation they want even if it's unfair is no longer their right.

Wildalaska
July 10, 2004, 10:11 PM
Best thing that could happen for gun onwers is for it to pass, get challenged and end up at SCOTUS..

O yeah baby talk about win/win/win

WildcantyouseeitAlaska

NBKUVS
July 10, 2004, 10:13 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, in the spirit of incrementalism, if anyone's gun rights are expanded, it is good for all of us. On the other hand, as someone who favors as limited a federal government as possible, I am generally opposed to federal government "mission creep" whereby the reach and scope of the federal government expands day by day. Frankly, I cannot say that federal preemption of the gun laws of the several states (in this context) is not overreaching by the feds. I don't think that there is a viable connection to interstate commerce, for example, to justify it (contrast the federal Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) which arguably has a connection to interstate commerce, namely, interstate travel by gunowners). Again, I am generally in favor of expansion of gun rights for any and all; however this particular vehicle of federal preemption of state law offends my notions of limited federal government. As a side note, I have concerns whether this law would survive a constitutional challenge in the courts.

Watchman
July 10, 2004, 11:13 PM
I see this law as a step in the right direction.

For one, it puts more good guys with guns on the street. I dont see this as a bad thing.

Second, the more folks we have on the street with guns, the more voice we have in legislative matters. Maybe some of these folks that generally waffle on gun issues will wake up and take note.

Thirdly, this law basically "cleans up" some of the laws that make it illegal for a cop to tote in another state. I have issued several permits to cops that actually have more rights as a CCW carrying citizen than an off duty cop. Many states stipulate that an out of state cop must be on duty to legally carry a gun. If he is off duty he has no right.

Last but not least, it could be a step in national reciprocity. Its a fact that the anti gun states are usaully the places where you need your gun the most. The great city of New York could care less that you visited their city and got mugged by some thug thats spent his life in and out of jail. They have demonstrated their ability on numerous occasions their willingness to spend more time, money and resources prosecuting someone that tired to defend themselves with a gun than than the perp that initiated the crime.

I always thought this to be a travesty of justice. Perhaps this bill might be the first step to giving any red blooded American the ability to defend himself from not only the thugs that would rape, plunder and pillage them or their families, but also the morally corrupt thugs that would make it illegal for one to so.

Reno
July 10, 2004, 11:51 PM
El Rojo, if a LEO wants to CCW, what's stopping them from getting a CCW permit themselves?

alan
July 11, 2004, 12:05 AM
Watchman wrote, among other things:

I see this law as a step in the right direction.

I respectfully suggest that you take a second look, perhaps a third, if that proves necessary.

For instance, what has been the stated attitude of some of the various national polkice organizations and their leaders?

As I suggested, look again.

Watchman
July 11, 2004, 10:36 AM
For instance, what has been the stated attitude of some of the various national polkice organizations and their leaders?

It dosent matter what "they" think about this law.

I'll be the first to agree that many of the leaders consider themselves to be superior to not only civilians, but also to the rank and file cops. I also beleive them to be socialist sumbichs that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Unfortunatly, like many other unions in this country, what the leaders think does not usually reflect the ideas or thoughts of the membership.

Its the leadersip that gets the exposure. We often hear about what this cheif thinks or what this Sherrif says, when in reality the guys on the street think opposite. Im reminded of the support for the Brady Bill when Clinton stacked the White House steps with many leaders from various police organizations. He made it look like ALL of law enforcement supported it, when in fact very few did.It was Clinton Politics as usual.

El Rojo
July 11, 2004, 11:39 AM
I knew I should have made it know that was more a more satirical look at this. Everyone says the cops are going to drop us like a bad habit, so what is to say CCW holders wouldn't drop cops? If you area is not friendly to CCW or CHL, a law enforcement officer won't get one either. How many police officers have a CCW in Los Angeles County or City? Of course they can carry off-duty anyway, but we are talking about CCW only getting national reciprocity and that would leave those cops out of luck and me a few hours north in luck. Again, I was mainly poking fun at the whole "Oh God no!!! Now the super elite have no reason to fight for us anymore because they only think in their own selfish interests and don't care about anyone else." I contend that most cops and most shooters are one in the same and that if cops are selfish, then CCW holders and shooters in general are probably selfish too, so how can you blame the cops for getting theirs since CCW holders would have done the same thing. Now if you believe that cops are decent and good people who are generally conservative and you think they will still argue for us to be armed, this entire argument means nothing to you.

Do you know the use of force rules that apply to non-police officers in your vacation state?Probably the same exact use of force rules that everyone should follow. Only display or use your firearm if you have a real and reasonable fear for your life and you can prove it to a jury of 12. Not that hard.

F4GIB
July 11, 2004, 11:53 AM
I know all LEO's hate defense counsel, but any one of them will tell you that "Probably the same" is a pi@@ poor defense strategy.

Especially in a state like Minnesota where the police "rules" on use of force (including deadly force) are more liberal than the armed civilian "rules." Acting like a cop while not a "real" state-licensed police officer ought to get you a visit to the Barrs Hotel.

El Rojo
July 11, 2004, 12:04 PM
I guess I was under the impression that law enforcement was only permitted to carry a concealed weapon and that they received no protections by the department while traveling out of state. I didn't know that it gave them police powers and that they were going to be making arrests and drawing their weapons on jay walkers while at Disney World. F4GIB, find something credible to complain about. Cops off duty don't want to do cop stuff, they want to relax. I think it is pretty safe to say they are not going to be pulling their gun on a out of state trip unless it is absolutely necessay.

And really, what does it matter if the state laws are all different? Should that make a difference on whether they get to carry or not? That is a good point, since carry and "use of force rules" :rolleyes: are different all over the country, we can't expect trained law enforcement to know them all and be responsible. So we sure as hell can't expect the average CCW/CHL holder to be capable of the same. Lets just scrap the whole idea. You are right people just aren't smart enough to be able to take responsibility to do this. :barf:

alan
July 11, 2004, 03:04 PM
All:

Allow me to clarify a couple of points

1. The average STREET COP, I've known several, might not be
at all opposed to CIVILIAN CARRY OF ARMS, but it isn't they who are asked, nor is it they who media quotes, nor is it THE STREET COP, that is part of all those "photo ops" so beloved of political types, rather it is the POLICE BUREAUCRATS and or UNION OFFICALS, another type of bureaucrat, who make the papers, and are heard in the halls of legislative The Congress.

2. As to the civilian not being knowlegable of the laws concerning the use of deadly force, in an area where he/she/they might be vacationing, since when are police all that knowlegable of the law. Rumor has it that they are, but one hears all sorts of rumors in the bazaar.

gryphon
July 11, 2004, 08:05 PM
They knew that if citizens with CCWs had been given the right to carry nation wide, those CCW supporters would have got what they wanted and said to hell with law-enforcement. Basically the police knew that CCW holders would have abandoned them once CCW holders got theirs.

How's that again?

It's funny. We are all citizens, but then people seem to think that LEO are different.

If the "civilians" get the law passed in their selfish way, then EVERYONE can take advantage.

If the LEO gets the bill passed in their own selfish way, then ONLY LEO benefit.

So, you tell me how this argument holds water?

El Rojo
July 12, 2004, 01:04 AM
No, if "If the "civilians" get the law passed in their selfish way, then EVERYONE can take advantage" is not the case. If nation wide CCW takes place, those people in states and counties that have friendly CCW get to take advantage. Those states without CCW or counties that issue no CCW are not going to give them to law enforcement just so they can carry out of state. This is a mute point as all of my theory on this is one big act of sarcasm to point out how rediculous it is to be against this on the point that LEOs are now going to forget about us because they got theirs. My argument holds no water just like the arguement that LEOs will now forget us has not been presented with any kind of evidence other than the ramblings of petty, anti-LEO types.

I like the arguments that this isn't a good bill because it takes away states rights. Good points with relevancy and backing. The rest just seems to be about how some people are pissy because they don't get along with cops.

tyme
July 12, 2004, 03:48 AM
And the difference is that in this case, the inequality between police and citizens is imposed by the legislation. In your "selfish" citizen national-ccw hypothetical, the inequality already exists; the legislation would do nothing to exacerbate it.

Roadkill Coyote
July 12, 2004, 04:38 AM
IANAL, but here's a thought about the differances in state statutes.

Although state laws may vary widely, an officer carrying under H.R. 218 is only dealing with one very specific aspect of the law, the circumstances under which deadly force may be used, after all, it only allows an officer to carry a means of applying one specific type of force. With regards to using deadly force, there is a useful standard which has been applied nationally, and which is widely and routinely covered in law enforcement training. It is found in Tennessee v. Garner. That, coupled with the certain knowledge that his actions will be judged in a unfamiliar court, mean that drawing a weapon carried in another state under H.R. 218 should, of course, be an action of the very last resort.

If you enjoyed reading about "Please explain in rational terms how the national CCW for police is bad?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!