First and foremost, let me say that I did not want to hijack this thread into a cop carry thread. I was merely relating the cop carry law, as well as the militarization of the police (.50bmgs) to this Pro-Mercenary law.
but I must point out that cop carry has helped us non-cops a little bit. In places that are absolutely no CCW, where CCW is culturally repulsive, like Hawaii and Illinois, it is good to force them to accept that non-locals are packing. That's an especially big deal in HI. If non-locals, outsiders are packing, then shouldn't we be allowed to pack also?
Wrong. "non-locals" are not packing...Police and ex-police are packing.
This is precisely how that strategy is mislabeling the truth. LEO's are in a different class entirely whether or not someone is willing to accept that as reality. This is precisely the way people in that "culture" will see it. That is why this strategy is completely flawed. I admit, I was very hostile and rude to folks from Illinois and other ultra-anti-CC states based on this. They insist that this is a good strategy, when it is flawed in every way. If having police (which are a tiny minority anyway) carrying somehow changes the political atmosphere over there, I'll EAT my words and apologize. But it won't happen, not because there isn't enough cop carry, but because they ARE cops who are carrying. Different class of human. I was hostile because I felt that this strategy was terribly selfish on the part of those in ban-states. Note that I totally feel for them..I do. In that I want to see them gain concealed carry by rejecting cop carry. Cop carry, in my honest opinion will futher delay civilian carry. It didn't help, it wasn't neutral, it will actually hurt. I also reject the argument that cop carry will at least make the general concept of concealed carry more palatable. While this is the best argument of these long-shot flawed ideas, it too is doomed, because most of these people will not attribute successful cop carry to successful civilian carry. You can't say "see, someoen carries, why shouldn't you" because these people are already OK with cops carrying in the first place. The idea is to convince them that civilian carry is OK. You do this by arguing that a huge majority of states in this country have it, and have no problems as a result. If they won't listen, then they certainly won't somehow equate cop carry to civilian competency and safety. The "cops can do it, so should we" argument will never fly for concealed carry. If that works, and to be honest, I HOPE IT DOES..then why shouldn't we use that argument when it comes to the type of weaponry that police use. Certainly, the police can get their hands on stuff we will never be able to...if they can have it, why can't we?
BTW, proposed bills and actual reform are two different things.
I also think the political culture in some ban-states is too overwhelming. I lived in NY State..I didn't care for it (and it's better than Illinois or California). I took a pay cut and came to Florida, its pro-gun and better in many other ways. Like Ronald Reagan said, people vote with their FEET. Move to a better state. Here in Florida, my VOTE counts..in NY, it is a wasted minority vote. I'd rather be in a progun state and suppress a minority of gun-grabbers, than to be in a gun-grabber state being suppressed by a majority of gun-grabbers.
As for this Mercenary Enabler Bill...it falls down the same lines. I hope that many pro-gun people aren't tricked into supporting a bill they think will help their efforts. It is the exact same dynamic at work. People thinking that State-approved users of such weapons constitutes a just reason for civilian use of such weapons. Again, this is from the non-gun crowds perspective.
