Extending LEOSA to Judges & Prosecutors

[GEM]

No worries. As I said, it will never pass in our current legislatively configuration or the one to come. The bill is posturing.

 

[George Dickel]

And my issue is also related.

Driving is NOT a "right" as gun ownership is.

But that "right" does not allow you to endanger my life !.

My right to draw breath should not have ANYTHING to do with your right to carry = UNLESS you carry around me !.

I have taught officers how to shoot,and they qual yearly.

Too many are NOT truly qualified to use that gun.

But I want all to be at the very least 'that good'.

When the government sets requirements for me to exercise a constitutional right it ceases to be a right, it becomes a privilege. That a drivers license is a privilege has no bearing on the fact that you will have a greater risk of being injured or killed by a poor driver. I would bet there are far more motor vehicle accident injuries cause by unqualified drivers than by lawful gun owners.

The firearm training level for a police officer should be far greater than for the individual CCW holder. A police officer is expected to charge into a situation where superior training will protect themselves and innocent people, a CCW holder is going to try and escape that situation. I detect a bit of elitism in your post on this topic, it sounds like you really don't approve of "civilians" carrying a firearm, that only police should have that ability.

 

[Armybrat]

Another separation of the thralls and jarls.

Either the Second Amendment means what it says or it doesn't.

No Free Citizen should have to beg and pay tithe to the King to exercise their Rights.

I submit that if we are required to have a permit and background check to exercise the Second Amendment then the same should be true for voting.

Truth!
Poll taxes were done away with 56 years ago.

 

[Craig_AR]

Poll taxes were done away with 56 years ago.

Referring to voting rights as compared (analogous?) to right to be armed is spot on target here. Recall that during the Jim Crow era, even more egregious than the poll tax was the literacy test as a barrier to voting. It has been said that the method of administering the literacy test to register to vote was highly biased and discriminatory, handled differently for different people. The same could easily happen with any firearms training or testing regimen, converting a shall issue jurisdiction into a de facto may issue reality.
I agree all with a firearm should have training. I agree with those in this thread who oppose mandatory training or testing as a requirement for exercising 2A rights.

 

[George P]

Since most of our criminal issues are due to judges abd DAs, I'd v

There's good and bad to that. Left leaning judges and prosecutors will see it as a 'not for thee, but for me' entitlement. Right leaning judges and prosecutors probably already have permits anyway.

That was my initial thought when this thread first posted; but mine was worded in a way that most likely would have gotten me a political "time out!"

 

[George P]

I submit that if we are required to have a permit and background check to exercise the Second Amendment then the same should be true for voting.

I'd opt for a simple 7th grade Civics test

 

[Craig_AR]

I'd opt for a simple 7th grade Civics test

If only Civics were still taught in public schools! Current high school and college grads are abysmally ignorant of even the lesson of I'm Just a Bill.

 

[scaatylobo]

When the government sets requirements for me to exercise a constitutional right it ceases to be a right, it becomes a privilege. That a drivers license is a privilege has no bearing on the fact that you will have a greater risk of being injured or killed by a poor driver. I would bet there are far more motor vehicle accident injuries cause by unqualified drivers than by lawful gun owners.

The firearm training level for a police officer should be far greater than for the individual CCW holder. A police officer is expected to charge into a situation where superior training will protect themselves and innocent people, a CCW holder is going to try and escape that situation. I detect a bit of elitism in your post on this topic, it sounds like you really don't approve of "civilians" carrying a firearm, that only police should have that ability.

Sorry but you "detect
wrong

You see I am now a "civilian" and as such have NO rights that an LEO gets [ and gets to LOSE a lot more too ].

I am just as upset at a driver that can harm me as a CCW person.

I fear that a CCW party might see a threat and react ----- PUTTING ME in the line of fire.

I have not seen or heard of many people that have a CCW in my state ,EVER taking a single course to be able to take "that shot".

And no doubt = too many officers are in that same catagory too .

I do not want to take ANYONES RIGHTS = but my RIGHT to live should not be in the hands of one who is not trained !.

Do not misunderstand me,I do NOT trust any Govt to uphold my rights.

That is why we as Americans are armed,NOT to deer hunt or even for self defense.

But to over throw a Govt that is tyrannical..

But as you well know,the military does not hand out firearms to UNTRAINED troops [ and yes even they suffer "friendly fire" ].

My point is,I do not want to "suffer friendly fire" while shopping ,due to an untrained CCW citizen.

I see it as a Catch 22 !.

 

[Robert]

Speculation gets is nowhere. If this thing moves forward or they start hanging amendments on it that have a negative impact on us as gun owners then we can maybe revisit this at that time.