Should off duty cops be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us?

[jcoiii]

Where's the hammer hitting a nail emoticon? I think you nailed it ilbob.

 

[Jeff White]

Bill St. Clair said;

If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.

A peace officers commission is not an appointment to the US Supreme Court. The police don't decide what laws are constitutional. The courts do. When a law is passed, it is constitutional until a court says that it isn't.

That is how our system works. What you and I think is constitutional doesn't matter. The courts are the sole arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional.

What would be the sense of having a constitution at all if all 300 million plus citizens can decide what is and isn't constitutional?

Jeff

 

[Bill St. Clair]

I disagree, Jeff White. If you swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, it is your duty to determine whether your every action is in line with that oath. That determination is for you to make, personally. It has nothing to with the courts.

One man's opinion.

Every juror has the same decision to make. Am I to allow this so-called "law" to destroy the life of the living, breathing, human in front of me. If I think he did wrong, without a reasonable doubt, and deserves the punishment that the judge is likely to mete out, I'll vote to convict. Otherwise, I'll nullify the law and vote to acquit.

As a police officer you have the opportunity to vote to acquit every day by looking the other way at some by-the-books transgressions of the so-called "law". You can act from your humanity instead of goose-stepping over good people. I request that you do so. One wrongly imprisoned man is one too many. No matter what the "law" says.

 

[Euclidean]

That is how our system works. What you and I think is constitutional doesn't matter. The courts are the sole arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional.

Actually, I do beg to differ. Let's say there's a federal law that wearing a "Don't Vote for Hilldog" T shirt is a crime punishable by life imprisonment with no jury trial that passes Congress and is signed by W.

I wear such a T shirt in protest and get tossed in the clink. One year later, SCOTUS hears another case just like mine and says no way we're upholding that law, it's unconstituitional, that law is no good.

By your logic I'm up skit creek because the law wasn't unconstituitional until they said it was. When I was convicted it was on the books, so I'm obviously going to stay in prison the rest of my life even though SCOTUS struck the law down. But we both know that's not how it would go down.

A law that's declared unconstituitional is made completely null and void. Any decisions or convictions based on such law are immediately negated just like it never existed; it was never a valid law to begin with. After it's declared unconstituitional, those who did not comply with the law when it was a law cannot be punished for their actions during that time either. Therefore, once again, the law was never valid to begin with and should not have been enforced by anyone. No one should have obeyed it either.

I do not envy law enforcement. What a horrible position to be in. On the one hand, one knows in his heart of hearts that something like arresting people who carry handguns without a permit is wrong. On the other hand, if he doesn't do it, he might very well wind up losing his job or worse, which could unfairly punish his family for instance.

But the fact remains that if there were enough men of conscience in the right positions, they could affect change. No one in Texas is arrested for carrying wire cutters even though that law is still on the books. Why? Because LE professionals know it's a stupid law and they refuse to enforce it.

Of course the trick is to make that kind of refusal to enforce universal. It's very tempting to enforce laws selectively when the perp is an unsympathetic party. So in the real world, it's a tough battle to fight as officers of conscience must work over time to persuade their colleagues of new practices and procedures. I'd wager there are men of conscience deeply rooted in the LE community who try to affect what change they can, and we just don't see it because we're on the outside looking in.

 

[Powderman]

That you didn't, but you're happy to enforce it. If cops would follow their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, instead of enforcing obviously unconstitutional so-called "laws," you'd be a lot more likely to be my friends. As it is, you're the face and hands and guns of the police state. Not my friends.
__________________

As a police officer you have the opportunity to vote to acquit every day by looking the other way at some by-the-books transgressions of the so-called "law". You can act from your humanity instead of goose-stepping over good people. I request that you do so. One wrongly imprisoned man is one too many. No matter what the "law" says.
__________________

And yet once again, I am quite literally astounded at the attitudes and mental mindset of some of the posters here. Almost speechless, as a matter of fact.

Let's see, where to start?

To address both of you, yes, we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The WHOLE Constitution. Especially that pesky Twelfth Amendment:

"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.


This has been long known as the "elastic" clause. This allows the States to enact the statutes and/or laws that they believe are necessary.

Some of you seem to forget that we, as police officers, do NOT judge, nor do we interpret the law. We determine if a crime has been committed, will be committed, or is in progress. We then determine if probable cause (covered by the Fourth Amendment) exists, and if so, we detain and place under arrest the person suspected of breaking the law.

That's all we do. We are not judges; we deliver the person to the Court, who is the trier of fact. The Court examines the evidence, appoints a jury if necessary, and determines guilt or innocence.

So, let's say that we "look the other way" when some crimes are committed. Criminal offenses are generally categorized in two groups: mala in se and mala prohibitum. Mala prohibitum laws are laws enacted by local and State jurisdictions to "keep order" within the jurisdiction.

Mala in se laws are those which are bad in and of themselves--murder, robbery, rape, kidnap--you get the picture.

So, let's say that I "decide" not to enforce mala prohibitum laws.

Where do I begin and where do I stop?

Well, let's say that this week, I stop a convicted felon who just happens to be armed. Do I arrest them, or not?

Perhaps, I run across some fine upstanding young gentlemen who just happen to be selling illegal pharmaceuticals. Oh, well, that's just a silly law, isn't it? People have the right to take what they want, don't they?

Well, here's another twist...let's say that the person buying the drugs just happens to be your son. Or, your daughter.

Perhaps your wife or husband. Is it so harmless then?

Or, maybe we should not lock up that sex offender. After all, he just went to bed with a 14 year old, and it's a natural urge, right? Basic human function. What right do I have to regulate human function? So, a slap on the back, and he's on his way.

Well, let's say that this guy moves into YOUR neighborhood, and goes to bed with YOUR daughter. No problems, right?

This is called the "slippery slope". Crack the door, and the floodgates open.

I don't make the laws, I simply enforce them, within the boundaries delineated by the Constitution and the jurisdictions I patrol.

You don't like the law? Utilize the three Constitutional processes--the petition, referendum and the recall. Don't just sit behind your keyboard and complain, do something about it.

Until then, if you break the law in my jurisdiction, and I catch you, chances are you'll be arrested, or maybe issued a citation. I am not the trier of fact, and I don't decide who is guilty or innocent. I enforce the law.

-__________________________________________________

To the well-intentioned mod who asked that I delete my signature line--still think that I was being inflammatory?

 

[Fletchette]

A well written article

Very pertinent to this thread:


http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073002.asp

July 30, 2002 9:00 a.m.
Day-Dream Believers
What if the government had to obey gun-control laws?
By Dave Kopel & Robert Racansky



CLA law school professor Eugene Volokh has asked his weblog readers to "imagine that you had the superpower to add one amendment to the U.S. Constitution...What would it be?"

Here's one proposal: the Goose and Gander Amendment. Since it works as a supplement to the Second Amendment, we'll make it Amendment Two-and-a-Half:




1. No government agency, nor employee of any government agency, shall be allowed to possess firearms prohibited to the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

2. No government agency, nor any employee of any government agency, shall be exempt from laws and regulations regarding the possession or use of firearms which affect the citizens of the state, county, or municipality in which they serve.

3. All exemptions inconsistent with sections 1 and 2 shall be void beginning on the 30th day after the ratification of this amendment.

4. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to exempt agencies and employees of the federal government from federal, state, or local laws and regulations related to firearms.

5. Nothing in this amendment shall apply to the Department of Defense or states' National Guards.


This amendment does not in any way restrict existing powers of the federal, state, and local governments to pass gun-control laws. Rather, the gun laws would be strengthened by being of more general applicability. Removing government exemption would provide an incentive for politicians and regulators to pass only those gun-control laws which are truly reasonable.

Suppose that a state wants to outlaw so-called "junk guns" (inexpensive handguns used by poor people for self-defense). The prohibitionists make sanctimonious claims about merely wanting guns to be safe and reliable. Yet their proposed bans always contain an exemption allowing policemen to possess and carry such guns — as though the police should have unsafe and unreliable firearms. And in fact, "junk guns" are quite popular with many police officers, who carry them as back-up guns, often on an ankle holster because the guns are compact and lightweight. Under the Goose and Gander Amendment, the prohibitionist legislators must explain to the police why guns that they like to carry for police work may no longer be carried — because legislators, after all, understand gun design and function much better than do police officers.

Alternatively, the legislators could admit that the reliability issue is a sham, and that the real goal is to deprive poor people of the only guns they can afford. This goal is so important, the legislators could argue, that it is worthwhile to deprive police officers of their backup guns — since the officers will still be able to carry their expensive primary guns.

Besides wanting to outlaw guns that are too small (inexpensive handguns), gun prohibitionists also want to outlaw guns that are too big — such as 50-caliber target rifles and so-called "assault weapons." (Unlike Goldilocks, the prohibitionists are unable to find any gun which is "just right.")

Under the Goose and Gander Amendment, cities will still be able to ban "assault weapons." Politicians will still be able to claim that the guns have no legitimate purpose, and are not suitable for target shooting (even though many of the banned guns are the primary firearms for rifle competition) or for hunting (even though some of the banned guns are particularly designed for game hunting, such as the Valmet Hunter) or for lawful self-defense (for which almost all the guns are quite effective). While enacting "assault weapon" bans, politicians can continue to assert that only mass murderers and drug dealers would want to own such guns, which are supposedly only good for spray-firing at crowds of innocent people.

Very well, then. We certainly don't want the police to spray-fire at crowds of innocent people. Nor do we want guns that are uniquely attractive to psychopaths to be available to police, since the possibility of owning such a gun might induce a clever psychopath to join the police force for purposes of obtaining extra weaponry.

While it is very, very rare for ordinary people or for law-enforcement officers to use an "assault weapon" in a crime, it is not unheard of. For example, in December 1992, an off-duty Bureau of Indian Affairs police officer opened fire and shot 50 rounds into a bar in Bemidjii, Minnesota. He used the Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he had been issued by the government, as well as his own 9mm. handgun.

On September 13, 2004, the federal "assault weapon" ban will sunset. Advocates of renewing the law would certainly, we hope, propose removing the loophole contained in 18 U.S. Code section 922(v)(4), which allows unlimited use and possession of "assault weapons" by law-enforcement officers, "whether on or off duty" — and even allows possession and use by retired law-enforcement officers. If the claims of the gun-prohibition groups are to be believed, we certainly should not allow this loophole to continue to exist; after all, these groups assure us that the guns have no good purpose, that the mere presence of such an awful-looking gun can incite an otherwise law-abiding person to commit a mass murder, and that no amount of background checks or training can ensure that a person is safe enough to own an "assault weapon."

Will the gun-prohibition groups work to close the "assault weapon" loophole? Or will they cynically fight to protect the loophole which, by their own reasoning, is morally indefensible?

Opponents of the Goose and Gander Amendment will point out that police officers are better trained than ordinary citizens. While this may be true, there are plenty of citizens who have voluntarily taken defensive firearms training that is far more extensive than what many police officers have received. Besides, allowing highly trained people to own guns whose only purpose is (allegedly) to murder a lot of people quickly would be especially dangerous.

In any case, the Goose and Gander Amendment would still allow governments to impose training for gun owners, or for people who want to possess certain types of firearms. The amendment would simply require that everyone who passes whatever tests and/or background checks the government mandates be treated equally.

The Goose and Gander Amendment would, of course, apply to more than just gun bans. If a state wants to impose a three-day wait to buy a handgun, then the police officers in that state would be required to wait three days before taking possession of a handgun, which is what happens to ordinary citizens. For example, in Illinois a gun owner must obtain a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID), which takes 30 days. Yet every time she buys an additional handgun, she still has to wait three days.

It's hard to see the public safety benefit of imposing a "cooling off" period on someone who already owns guns, but if this cooling off period is good for the general public, it would also make sense for government employees. Domestic-violence groups frequently point out that a very large number of police officers are domestic abusers — which is precisely the kind of crime that cooling off periods are supposed to reduce.

While many people think that police officers are the only government employees who carry guns, many other agencies also have armed agents, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forestry Service the Internal Revenue Service, agricultural inspectors, and many, many others. Under the Goose and Gander Amendment, these employees would still be allowed to carry firearms while on duty — so long as they complied with state law.

In a few states, concealed weapons are entirely illegal — because the legislature has determined that no matter what kind of background check and training one has, there is too great a risk that people carrying guns will shoot each other in traffic jams.

It would be difficult to argue that, simply by virtue of a person's employment by the U.S. Forestry Service or the Department of Agriculture, he is immune to the surges of homicidal emotions that, we are told, strike anyone at any time.

Finally, the Goose and Gander Amendment is progressive, because it ensures that gun laws will sensibly keep up with changing social needs. Gun prohibition lobbies have recently begun to push for outlawing the sale of all handguns except for high-tech "personalized guns" that meet standards to be set by a bureaucratic commission. Although guns incorporating palm-print readers or similar technology are still in the unreliable prototype stage, the proposals would outlaw all existing handguns within a few years.

Amazingly, these prohibition proposals also contain a government-employee exemption — even though the original reason the federal government began subsidizing personalized gun research was to protect police officers whose guns were snatched by a criminal. (About one-twelfth of police officers who are fatally shot are killed with their own gun.)

Yet the proponents of outlawing all current handguns and forcing citizens to buy only new-fangled gadgets quite accurately recognize that if the proposal were to apply to the police, the police lobbies would quash the proposal instantly. Police officers are not going to stand for being forced to rely on guns that won't work if the battery wears out, or if the palm-print reader has trouble recognizing a dirt-covered hand. 99 percent reliability isn't good enough for a gun that you are using against a violent criminal attacker.

Yet the gun-prohibition lobbies are ready to force everyone except government employees to use firearms of questionable reliability — because they consider defensive gun use by non-government employees to be immoral.

That antigun politicians and the lobbyists who support them are so willing to exempt the government from the gun laws suggests that many gun-control laws have less to do with protecting public safety than with disarming the citizenry and exalting the government. The policy reflects a philosophy that sovereignty belongs to the government rather than to the people — which is just the opposite of what the Constitution says.

— Dave Kopel and Robert Racansky both write from the Independence Institute.

 

[ilbob]

To address both of you, yes, we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The WHOLE Constitution. Especially that pesky Twelfth Amendment:

"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.

I think it might well be the tenth amendment.

Mr. Powderman. There are a huge number of perfectly valid laws that are still in place in the US that have never been repealed, and never ruled unconstitutional, yet are never enforced either. Do you plan to start enforcing them as well?

 

[Bill St. Clair]

Powderman said:

You don't like the law? Utilize the three Constitutional processes--the petition, referendum and the recall. Don't just sit behind your keyboard and complain, do something about it.

I prefer to think of our options as three boxes: the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. I consider that the first two boxes have failed. It's only a matter of time before the third box comes into play. Wish it weren't so. He said, from atop his soap box.

It used to be that the law built a steel wall around actions that were universally thought to be repugnant: hurting people or stealing their property. The law was designed to keep us outside those dark places. I applaud such law, and those who help enforce it. Nowadays, the law builds the same steel wall around the small area of activity that is universally approved. It is used to keep us inside. I have zero respect for that "law". I do not recognize its authority to exist, and I do not recognize your authority to enforce it.

And it really isn't an issue of Constitutionality. It's an issue of humanity. It is inhuman to drag a man away and put him in a cage because he's carrying effective tools for defending himself and his family from predators. No matter how many people voted for it. Likewise for smoking an herb. All I ask is that peace officers help us to preserve the peace, instead of being the very predators from whom we need to defend ourselves.

But I've wandered way off topic. Or have I? As L. Neil Smith said (scroll down):

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

I think that answers the question pretty well. Yes, off duty cops should be subject to the same gun laws as the rest of us. None.

 

[Soybomb]

If I took a pole of how many times the LEOs on this forum have pointed a gun or even shot a bad guy vs. how many times the CCWers have done the same legally. You would see that the experience level is tilted big time toward LEOs.

I think Expierence is the biggest difference to why or why not as far as gun laws pertaining to LEO vs CCW.

Not to say that their arent CCWers with as much or more expierence/ tactical skills, or that a lot of LEOs arent turds. But just to get that out there as something to think about.

Once again, like I said earlier, you're using the "I'm the only one experienced enough in this room" argument. There are several states that require either no permits to carry or no classes as part of the permit process. If training is relevalnt to concealed carry safety I would appreciate being shown some statistics showing those states have more ccw problems. One is well advised to see out quality private training to use their concealed weapon effectively, but required classes seem to have no impact on safety to the rest of the public. If you have actual proof to the contrary I would certainly look it over.

That responsibility--no, that duty does not end when we are off shift.

Is that the only reason you carry off duty? Wouldn't you also say you carry to protect yourself and your family from people that you might have angered during your work days? Don't non-leo's have that same problem? Is your duty to react and protect the general public any different than a parent's duty to react and protect their family, legally recognized obligation aside of course? I don't think anyone thinks its a huge perk, and leo's do need to carry off duty for additional reasons as well, but they also carry off duty for some of the same reasons others need to as well.

I disagree, Jeff White. If you swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, it is your duty to determine whether your every action is in line with that oath. That determination is for you to make, personally. It has nothing to with the courts.

I'm not sure you'd always like the outcome of this though. It sounds great when the officer in question reads the constitution the same way as you do. Will you be as happy with the outcome when that leo decides that the court's view of that amendment is wrong and it really doesn't grant you the freedom to do what you do? He's just following the constitution, not the courts.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

and dont hate the LEOs for it, we didnt make it this way.

So LEOs didn't lobby for an LEO only nationwide concealed carry law? LEOs didn't try to gain support from non-LEOs by saying that they would in turn support a nationwide non-LEO right to carry law?

 

[Powderman]

Is that the only reason you carry off duty? Wouldn't you also say you carry to protect yourself and your family from people that you might have angered during your work days? Don't non-leo's have that same problem? Is your duty to react and protect the general public any different than a parent's duty to react and protect their family, legally recognized obligation aside of course? I don't think anyone thinks its a huge perk, and leo's do need to carry off duty for additional reasons as well, but they also carry off duty for some of the same reasons others need to as well.

You are correct, of course.

However, please note the bolded text above from your post.

Some people on this board seem to think so.

Bill, in answer to your post re: three boxes, I'd like to know this:

Why do so many people here seem to think that armed resistance is the only solution? Why do so many people here think that taking up arms against our Government is acceptable, at this point?

Why do you state a willingness to revolt, and to start armed insurrection?

I'm sorry, but I look upon claims like this as somewhat specious. Lots of folks here say that they will resist the Government, and state that they are willing to take arms against the Government. It is my experience that those who do so are frequently full of hot air.

There are also those who state that they will NOT help their fellow man in time of danger, instead opting to run away and call 911. Some of these people also give the "from my cold dead hands!!!" speech on these forums.

This thread was started because some insane jerk who happened to squeak through the cracks in the State of Wisconsin took a gun and killed people out of rage. It has turned into a whine fest against all police officers--as usual. Here's my final word on the subject: If you want to carry a gun like a cop, then go out and find employment AS a cop. Wear the stuff that comes along with it on your duty belt--you have the same right to a bad back that the rest of us do.

Rest assured that I love to encounter people who like to preach the Constitution to me, after I pull them over for having no plates on the car; tell me that they enjoy sovereign rights when they come back as a convicted felon and I find a firearm in the vehicle, and tell me how they are going to own everything I have as I place them under arrest. So go ahead, tell me how to do my job on the side of the road. Everyone else is an expert on the law, why not you too?

And with that, I AM done with this thread. Really, truly and positively. This has turned into a waste of bandwidth.

 

[packnrat]

YES!

 

[KelTecian]

I also concur...G'bye thread.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

In my excitement, I forgot one of the boxes.

There are four boxes. The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Unfortunately, the jury box has been destroyed as well. Instead of every judge telling every jury that it is their right and duty to judge the alleged law as well as the alleged law-breaker, that a single juror has the power to veto the entire legal system, and rightfully so, judges now tell jurors that they must follow the judge's orders and are to consider only the facts presented in the trial. Any hint by a prospective juror that he knows of the age-old concept of jury nullification, and that juror will be disqualified. To my mind, nullification is the ONLY reason for a jury; it allows the people to keep the king in check.

 

[ilbob]

Why do so many people here seem to think that armed resistance is the only solution? Why do so many people here think that taking up arms against our Government is acceptable, at this point?

I don't know if they are serious or not. The congressional elections of 1994 proved you can change things if you want to, but if you allow the congress critters to lose focus, they end up screwing you over.

I think a lot of people fully expect Obama or Hillary to win the next election and start a gun roundup.

For those who think it can't happen, think again.

Schumer and Pelosi would ram through legislation claiming some kind of national emergency requires nationalizing local and state law enforcement. They would claim this is constitutional because state and local police use equipment that passed through interstate commerce. I think it is about a 50/50 chance the courts would accept this, based on very similar previous rulings regarding the interstate commerce clause.

If you don't turn in your guns within 90 days, you are a felon. In any case, the court challenges will take more than the 90 days you have to turn in your guns so you are screwed.

My guess is maybe 5% of state and local LE resign or otherwise resist the decree. The rest vote with their paycheck and start the roundups.

This very realistic possibility is why we must win in the courts and in the realm of politics. Just holding on doesn't cut it.

 

[LiquidTension]

How many of your 450 hours were specifically related to the carrying of firearms and the laws surrounding their use?

One solid week of range time, one solid week of scenarios, plus criminal law - and yes, we spent some time specifically dealing with CWPs. So it's not an apples to oranges comparison.

You misunderstood what I was asking. I wasn't saying that due to my training I'm the only one that should be able to carry 24/7 wherever I want - I don't believe that. I was asking if you were willing to sacrifice the same amount of time in order to have the same carry abilities. We'll cut it down to just range time and scenarios - two weeks. Would it be worth it to you to go to two weeks of training to be able to carry in places that you currently cannot? I'm not trying to be a smartass, it's a legitimate question.

Even only counting training that specifically deals with carrying guns, legal aspects related to guns, and scenarios involving potential use of guns, LEOs have significantly more training that the average CWP holder. It seems like most people want the same carry abilities as LEOs without having to do the work - and I'm being "classist"? Please

Now let me restate what I said before that was apparently ignored in order to foment arguments and name-calling - I have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying wherever they want (except jails and courthouses).

I had a CWP for 5 years before I went into law enforcement - still have it, actually. It was a pain to disarm before going into various prohibited places - schools, restaurants, etc. There's no reason that as a CWP holder I should have had to disarm. What makes me competent to carry a gun in the parking lot of Outback but not in the restaurant?

LEOs have to work to have the carry abilities they have. CWP holders want the same abilities without the effort. Should there be any work required? Of course not! However, as long as the laws are the way they are, asking to have the same abilities makes non-LEOs the "privileged class." Don't you see the irony in that?

The short answer to the thread title is "yes" - but only if the law allows all law abiding citizens to have the same carry rights as police. Which sort of makes it a moot point

 

[ilbob]

I was asking if you were willing to sacrifice the same amount of time in order to have the same carry abilities. We'll cut it down to just range time and scenarios - two weeks.

Where do I sign up for this class so I can carry on the same basis as LE?

The fact is that this is a straw man type of argument, since neither the training nor some kind of LE type CC is available to us mere commoners.

Besides, there is no evidence that training requirements change anything as far as civilian CC goes. Most states have minimal or no training requirements for civilian CC and there is absolutely no indication that this has been a problem.

That does not mean that appropriate training is not a good idea. But, there is no government requirement that you take a journalism class before you can write for a newspaper, or take religious training before praying.

 

[LiquidTension]

That's not what I was saying. I was merely curious if people would be willing to go through weeks of training to carry the same way LEOs do. I wasn't suggesting that it should be law. Like I said, there shouldn't be any type of requirement outside of the standard CWP training.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Before this goes away any further I'd like to say if you all want it that bad (CCW) just remember the other side of the coin (responsiblity).

 

[Autolycus]

Simply put... they should be subject to the same laws as all of us.

 

[Zoogster]

Every juror has the same decision to make. Am I to allow this so-called "law" to destroy the life of the living, breathing, human in front of me. If I think he did wrong, without a reasonable doubt, and deserves the punishment that the judge is likely to mete out, I'll vote to convict. Otherwise, I'll nullify the law and vote to acquit.

I was on a jury awhile back and the jury was specificly asked at the start if they would agree to follow the laws of the state regardless of personal opinions etc etc and base thier decision soley on the law of the state of CA. In fact it is a question given individualy to every single potential jury member under oath in the box as part of jury selection. It was even a little more specific, and you are reminded you are under oath.

So deciding to nullify the law you feel is unjust, but not getting kicked off the jury during the selection process is an impossibility unless you lie. If you lie to accomplish that then technicaly you are guilty of contempt of court.
So the jury selection process is stacked to not allow people to decide whether a law is right or wrong, but whether the person did the action or not. Deciding on whether you feel a person should be punished for that action has been removed from your options unless you are deceptive in the selection process. So you must LIE IN COURT to be able to do that at least under the selection process I was witness to. So anyone that feels that way and does not lie during selection will not be deciding on the person's fate.

 

[Harley Quinn]

Every juror has the same decision to make. Am I to allow this so-called "law" to destroy the life of the living, breathing, human in front of me. If I think he did wrong, without a reasonable doubt, and deserves the punishment that the judge is likely to mete out, I'll vote to convict. Otherwise, I'll nullify the law and vote to acquit.

Again the statement of responsibility.

If you are going to be the person who hangs the jury, you have better have a good reason for it. The rules of jurisprudence are very strick and making a statement at a forum is easy, being on the jury with 11 other folks and making your self the judge is when later it all goes astray.

I know a person who weighed her own personal thoughts around and hung a jury and has had nothing but torment ever since. Said something about not understanding at the time Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Being a "good Nazi" just because your boss told you to do it is not an excuse. I've run police training where gun confiscation is the issue. About half of the trainees will do as they are told, and the other half will not if they don't believe they have the legal justification to do it. (it was a Hurricane Katrina scenario.)

 

[Harley Quinn]

Being a "good Nazi" just because your boss told you to do it is not an excuse. I've run police training where gun confiscation is the issue. About half of the trainees will do as they are told, and the other half will not if they don't believe they have the legal justification to do it. (it was a Hurricane Katrina scenario.)

To bad we need to digress into this type of thinking, when on a jury you have to weigh the evidence that is presented and not what you think might be the case. The fact that the person had seven priors is not allowed sometimes, (because each case is supposed to be weighed on its own merits).

The reason for the blind lady is to off set what you are mentioning. And yes if someone feels that in their mind it was not proven. They have that right...

But they must be able to prove it and not because they just don't have the fortitude to convict or let go. It is based on the issues brought forth in that particular case.

Not to be confused with what happened in NO with what might be going on here or in the state of Germany during the time of the "nazi''.

Here is something for you to read:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id9.html

HQ

 

[Noxx]

Or better yet, lets have anyone who wants to open carry everywhere with 0 training?

Amen.