Should LEOs have more "rights" than non-LEOs?

The next war inside America will likely be the people and a large portion of the military against the police/FBI/ATF/etc.

Study history...and be afraid.

Art Eatman said:

But why rag on the cops? They don't make any of the laws.

Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't make them completely innocent. When special-privilege bills are introduced, police unions support them. When bills giving those same privileges to the general citizenry are introduced, police unions often oppose them.

I'm aware that a fellow might belong to the union and disagree with their policies. But when a profession, as a group, consistently lobbies for privileges that are denied to the general citizenry, it is fair to say that the profession, as a group, deserves a bit of heat for having helped to bring about those laws.

Its childish, selfish and its the worst approach I have ever seen in trying to get a collective National CCW. You want allies this way?

Click to expand...

LEOs: We have ours; you citizens need to be patient.

Sound a little selfish?

LEOs: Citizens, help us get national carry and then we will help you.

Where are the allies now?

Art Eatman said:

Tecumseh said, "We are just asking for equality."

Not one thing wrong with that. But why rag on the cops? They don't make any of the laws. And it's not at all correct--or logical--that the cops "have more rights".

Again, it's that non-cops are DENIED rights. Phrasing the issue that cops have MORE rights merely leads to a bunch of folks choosing up sides and smelling armpits...

The only real redress is legislative...

Click to expand...

+1.

One problem I see around here (California) is that these police officers do not WANT others to have these rights. Many of the Officers in this thread say ' hey, vote to change the laws'. Well, every time their is a new gun control bill (50 BMG the latest) nearly every commercial is police chiefs, officers, and union bosses pushing for this new ban. Usually they use the 'puts cops in danger' excuse. So, when they do ad campaigns for the gun-grabbers, then enforce these same laws they helped push through, they ARE the gun grabbers. There is no excuse for this.

It has also contributed to the distrust of police that grows daily. They rarely go after real criminals (that could be dangerous) so instead they support new laws to bust the every day Joe, in order to keep the Mayor happy with Arrest #'s, but the crime stays the same or gets worse.

But when a profession, as a group, consistently lobbies for privileges that are denied to the general citizenry, it is fair to say that the profession, as a group, deserves a bit of heat for having helped to bring about those laws.[

Click to expand...

]

Just cause one school kid throws a rock to your car doesn't mean its right to burn the whole school down with all the other students inside.

Sound like stereotyping to me.

Seems everyone believes all Leo's associations are against CCW right? Yet no one comes up with names of the so called anti LEO Association's. Do some reading it might help. http://www.leaa.org/Cops Versus Gun Control/copsversusguncon.html

Call it what U want but that dead horse smells to me like anti LEO resentment.

Saying nothing, while their union dues are used to push for the infringement of the rights of citizens is a choice. And inactivity on the matter IS a choice.

Thus "don't blame the cops" does not hold water. If they fund the unions seeking to infringe the rights of citizens, they are responsible.

Collectivism does not negate a member of that collective's individual responsibility for the actions of that collective that by their consent given by their payment of dues, they agree to voluntarily.

I voted no for the "face value" of the question. I don't believe LEO should be allowed to exercise any rights that regular citizens are not. I'm not saying that they (LEO) shouldn't be allowed to "carry", just that things should be equal.


I do think it is wrong for LEO to enforce laws prohibiting, restricting, or regulating RKBA. Such laws are unconstitutional (regardless of what some judge or politician says), and therefore violate the supreme law of the land. Enforcing them IMHO is nothing more or less than enforcing a violation of the law. It also makes it look as if the LEO are not enforcing the law, but just serving the state.

I know that isn't the way things work, and that is why I think this country is in trouble.

You guys can keep raggin' about the coppers and you're missing the point that the average cop is an ally of the 2nd ammendment and by nature, the police are fairly conservative in their beliefs, just like most of our people in the military are fairly conservative. Many are NRA members and don't see a problem with concealed carry for the average Joe. The mayor of the city may have a problem with it and his personal puppet, the Chief of police will mouth the words necessary to keep his job because he serves at the pleasure of the mayor. Cop unions are similar to the chief of police, they are politicians by necessity, so they may fall in line with the gun control line of the politicians.

By virtue of being a police officer, this person should be entitled to carry a pistol in all of the 50 states. They are certified to carry a pistol upon completion of firearms training and being a Sworn Officer. I see no problem with the citizen having been certified in his home state to have a Concealed Weapons Permit being certified in all 50. This is what we should be working for, making the Concealed Weapons Permit universal. The police got it, now lets get it for the rest of the good guys!

I've heard that if you are an out of state police officer and visiting Wisconsin, and you get caught carrying your pistol, you will get arrested.

"I've heard that if you are an out of state police officer and visiting Wisconsin, and you get caught carrying your pistol, you will get arrested."

You heard wrong. Any out of state officer arrested would own the city in a law suit.

This is from Arizona Revised Statutes 4-244. You can't carry in a place that is licensed to serve alcohol, unless you're a police officer:

29. For any person other than a peace officer, the licensee or an employee of the licensee acting with the permission of the licensee to be in possession of a firearm while on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer knowing such possession is prohibited....

Click to expand...

SB 1363 would have lifted that blanket restriction, allowing individual business owners to allow or restrict carry by citizens.

Citizens were behind this bill which would have granted to citizens a privilege currently only enjoyed by police officers. Who was against it? From The Arizona Senate Caucus Calendar, Feb 22, 2005:

Against Bill: AZ Association of Chiefs of Police ... Department of Public Safety ... Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona ... Arizona Sheriff's Association ... Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police ... Arizona Fraternal Order of Police

Some here have argued that it's sour grapes to demand that cops have no special privileges. After all, the correct thing to do is to give privileges to all, not take them away from the few that currently have them. We should level the playing field by raising everyone up, not by stomping anyone down. I agree.

Why, then, do police associations fight so determinedly when we citizens attempt to do exactly that?

Privileges?

Careful there.

The "R" in RKBA doesn't stand for "Privilege."

Nor does it stand for "permission" to keep and bear arms.

Efforts of politicians notwithstanding.

Yeah, I know it. In truth, rights are rights. In law, they've become largely privileges. It makes it harder than heck to have a discussion where we all agree on what the words mean.

See, the issue isn't just about leosa/hr218.

Increasingly, new legislation (esp. involving firearms) contains "law enforcement exemption clauses".

The legislative history shows that these clauses are inserted as a result of law enforcement lobbying. There's no denying that fact.

Heck, even without an explicit law enforcement exemption, judges can conjure one up: (see "unconstitutionally vague + machine gun").

The cumulative effect of these actions is creating a two-tiered justice system; a double standard for officials; and another one for the public. It stinks. And THIS is what is dividing the country.

To attempt to wave away the situation by saying "don't blame the cops, they only enforce the law"; transcends naivity, approaches hypocrisy. Likewise, those who blame anyone who exposes the truth, perpetuate the problem. Those "officials" who benefit from the double standard; yet argue for its merits; are an integral part of the problem. Worst of all, officials who snicker "if you don't like it, change the law!"...go ahead, rub salt in the wounds!

With respect to the issue of a double standard, does anyone actually think the situation is improving? Those arguments I'd love to hear.

This is what we should be working for, making the Concealed Weapons Permit universal. The police got it, now lets get it for the rest of the good guys!

Click to expand...

They got it because civilians pushed for it, with the promise that the LE groups would support national CC for civilians. After HR218 was enacted, LE support for national CC dried up. Now, we have to fight against groups like FOP and state police associations who are antagonistic to concealed carry at the state and national levels.

"They got it because civilians pushed for it, with the promise that the LE groups would support national CC for civilians. After HR218 was enacted, LE support for national CC dried up. Now, we have to fight against groups like FOP and state police associations who are antagonistic to concealed carry at the state and national levels."

Exactly!

Sometimes I think the gun community is just too stupid... Obviously, the powers-that-be DON'T WANT YOU TO BE ARMED! What else must we experience before all of us realize this???

It's simply a game of divide and conquer. Now that they can carry in all 50 states who's side do you think they'll serve if push comes to a very hard shove??? Think about it.

I know everyone wants to believe in the "best in all" but naivete is only "cool" for kids, kittens and dogs.

The Amigo said:

Call it what U want but that dead horse smells to me like anti LEO resentment.

Click to expand...

No bro, I really agree with Art. I made my statements earlier in this thread... Paraphrasing Techumsa, he just wants to repeal LEOSA, no matter the fact that it's a small advancement (and fricken smart) in an attempt to get a nation wide CCW passed.

However what has ever advanced out of retrograde? It's against everything that I know. You fight for the territory/principles that you believe in and you don't ever give that up! It just doesn't make damn sense what he's saying. We got that position, why should we give it up? If we do we're going to have to fight twice as hard and twice as long to get that position back, never mind getting national reciprocity.

There are those that just DON'T get it and arguing with them will have not affect whatsoever. They're just beating a dead horse.

I'm happy arguing the points. But please, let's stick to the points, and not go off into sillyland. I've been called resentful and a dead horse beater now. I'm compelled to respond.

There are those that just DON'T get it

Click to expand...

Ad hominem, circular. This could mean, "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong because they don't agree with me." It could also mean, "Oh, and they're stupid because they don't agree with me."

They're just beating a dead horse.

Click to expand...

That's been mentioned twice now. Translated: "How dare anyone disagree or add a different point to the discussion once The Truth has been written. I say it's a dead horse so shuddup."

just cause one school kid throws a rock to your car doesn't mean its right to burn the whole school down with all the other students inside.

Click to expand...

Straw man. I've never argued that we should... what? Burn down schools? Where did that come from. Nor have I once argued that any of the privileges police currently have should be taken away, assuming that's what was meant.

Sound like stereotyping to me.

Click to expand...

Name calling, and no I wasn't. I have called out, and put forth evidence, that police organizations lobby for special privileges. I have not said that all police officers agree with what their unions and lobbies are doing. I'm pretty sure they don't.

Call it what U want but that dead horse smells to me like anti LEO resentment.

Click to expand...

Name calling, and untrue. I do not resent LEOs. I resent privilege.

Ive wasted too much energy on trying to convince fellas on this one. Time to spend some quality time with my kids watching sponge bob. Some times sponge bob makes more sense than some of the stuff some people think here

By the way no offense intended.

To sponge bob

The Chief of Police is a political position, as is a Union boss (where unions are allowed). They are tools of the elected representatives, not the portrayed spokesman for the line-officer.

As to those that say LE is "just like any other job"... that is something you will never understand until you work in public safety.

To address the original question, my answer would be "no". There will always be instances of professional courtesy, I rarely get speeding tickets anymore (you'd be suprised how few tickets are written that could be written even to regular citizens). But actual legal "special treatment"... I work for a PD (not a cop) and I will say no.

I do hope that any "special treatment" is not revoked simply for the protection and benefit of the LE community. But I do hope that the elected representatives see the light and logic of envoking ALL CCW holders to being able to carry anywhere.

As to those blatantly bashing LEOs, grow up. Especially the one that spoke of "the murdered grandmother in ATL". Now I personally don't agree with "no-knock" warrants, but they are legal in ATL as of now, and the officers gave her plenty of time to cease firing before they stopped the threat.

A gun is a tool not a right for the LEO to defend his life against people who are willing to put an end to a life in order to continue to crap all over laws and others people rights as well.

Click to expand...

Let's rewrite that just a little:

"A gun is a tool not a right for a citizen to defend his life against people who are willing to put an end to a life in order to continue to crap all over laws and others people rights as well."

Hmmm...looks ok to me. Applies equally to us as cops. Owning the gun is the right. A finite and distinct difference. Importantly, citizens should have exactly that same right AND same tool as any cop.

jamesish,

Especially the one that spoke of "the murdered grandmother in ATL". She shot two officers, and her grandson was dealing drugs out of the residence. Now I personally don't agree with "no-knock" warrants, but they are legal in ATL as of now, and the officers gave her plenty of time (enough to shoot 2 officers) to cease firing before they stopped the threat.

Click to expand...

Ummm...I think you need to check your facts. Both federal and state investigations have now found that the informant lied, and that drugs were not bought from the grandson at the house. In fact, despite your please to stop cop bashing (and I'm not bashing cops here), the informant claimed the APD pressured him to lie. Two of the officers have now plead guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation, and making false statements.

As to those blatantly bashing LEOs, grow up. Especially the one that spoke of "the murdered grandmother in ATL". She shot two officers, and her grandson was dealing drugs out of the residence. Now I personally don't agree with "no-knock" warrants, but they are legal in ATL as of now, and the officers gave her plenty of time (enough to shoot 2 officers) to cease firing before they stopped the threat.

Click to expand...

No one here has been bashing cops. They are pointing out the double standard. And yes it is wrong.
As to the Atlanta cops, There Were NO drugs till the police planted them.
There was NO dealing, They lied.
It was flat out Murder and they will get off easy.

So you mean a street thug informant is trying to justify his lies by claiming it was the police that made him lie? Because some street thug drug dealer would definitely tell the truth, especially about dealings with the police.

She shot at police, and continued to shoot at police after it couldn't have been more obvious that :::gasp::: they were police.

As to the rest, we'll see what comes of that.

It occurs to me as very strange indeed that someone with enough common-sense to want to protect his right to bear arms automatically jumps to the side of a street-thug drug informant (and I wonder why he is an informant? does that need to be spelled out as well?) over that of a police officer.

And less than .5% of those that have worn the badge have tarnished it.

To the much earlier comment of "all we hear about is bad cops", well the media loves something like that. Of course all we hear about are the bad instances, because they are the ones that stand out. And they are overplayed and monday-morning-quarterbacked to death.

It's amazing you know so much about this case but how much do you know about the murder of two officers here in Charlotte? I guess that wasn't newsworthy for CNN to spend more than 5 seconds on. I guess grandma is more important than those officers... if you want to keep that us vs them mentality.

So you mean a street thug informant is trying to justify his lies by claiming it was the police that made him lie? Because some street thug drug dealer would definitely tell the truth, especially about dealings with the police.

Click to expand...

jamesish, What the f*** are you talking about.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/3_atlanta_cops_.html
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=96047
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2412

A botched drug raid that ended the life of a 92-year-old woman in a hail of police gunfire is drawing questions from House members about the use of informants.

Police burst into Kathryn Johnston's Atlanta home last fall using a no-knock warrant they obtained by lying to a judge about drug activity there, according to prosecutors.

Afterward, when they realized their mistake, the officers tried to cover their tracks, and one has admitted planting drugs in the house and coaxing a street-level informant to go along with their story, according to court papers.

Click to expand...

And you wonder why some would question the double standard.