Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hr 218

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 444, Jun 17, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 444

    444 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,950
    Location:
    Ohio
    House panel approves gun bill for officers

    By Brian A. DeBose
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    The House Judiciary Committee yesterday passed a bill that allows
    active-duty and retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons
    anywhere in the country.

    The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act heads to the floor of the House
    for a final vote before going to the Senate, where a similar bill passed
    as an amendment in March by a 91-8 vote. The bill permits "qualified"
    law-enforcement officers - retired, off duty and outside their jurisdiction
    - to carry a concealed weapon in any state regardless of the state's law.
    It passed on a 23-9 vote.

    The provision drew the ire of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
    Wisconsin Republican and committee chairman.
    "I believe it violates the principles of federalism and undermines the
    authorities of the states," said Mr. Sensenbrenner, the only Republican who
    did not support the bill.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner amended the legislation before voting no on the final
    bill. His amendment requires officers to have an official badge when
    carrying a concealed weapon, as well as a photographic identification and
    valid state certification.
    Rep. Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, also successfully attached an
    amendment that prohibits officers from being under the influence of alcohol
    or narcotics while carrying a gun.
    Mr. Scott made several attempts to amend the bill before joining the
    majority of Democrats in opposing it.
    Although 34 states have no restrictions on law-abiding citizens
    carrying concealed handguns, 16 states and the District do.
    Democrat Reps. Melvin Watt of North Carolina and Bill Delahunt of
    Massachusetts argued that Congress was enacting tyranny against the states.
    "I can't believe we would consider a bill that starts out with
    'Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State.' I mean, it
    is clear this violates our Constitution," Mr. Watt said.
    But Mr. Scott was more concerned about a jurisdiction's legal liability
    if one of its residents is shot by an out-of-state officer. He said
    another problem is that the bill will undercut police chiefs' authority
    over their officers' weapons.
    "This bill not only supersedes the police chiefs' ability to determine
    what is coming into their jurisdiction, it overrides his authority over his
    own officers," Mr. Scott said.
    Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, said the law requires much in
    the way of trust of the officers. She also hinted that the law could lead
    to more acts of police brutality by private citizens with badges.
    "You're setting up police officers to get into all sorts of trouble and
    jurisdictions to be subject to all forms of liability," Mrs. Waters said.
    Serious misconduct by concealed-weapon permit holders is rare, says the
    National Center for Policy Analysis, a public-policy research organization.
    The center said in a 2001 study that, in most states, fewer than 1
    percent of holders of concealed-and-carry licenses commit gun crimes.
    Out of the 215,582 concealed licensees in Texas, 178 were stripped of
    their permits because of felony convictions since 1996, study figures
    show. Three have gone to jail for murder or attempted murder.
    In Florida, where the state issued more than 72,000 licenses in 2000,
    it revoked 241; among Utah's 40,000 licensees, five lost privileges because
    of a conviction for murder or attempted murder. Indiana canceled 921
    licenses in 2000, out of 350,000 permits issued there.
     
  2. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,356
    Location:
    TX
    I originally didn't like the idea because of the differential between LEOs and regular citizens. I've heard all the arguments.

    I now support the idea as it is a good test of Bush's mettle on gun issues. Would he sign it if it gets to him? Given his lack of proactive measures for the RKBA, this might put him to the test.

    I guarantee that the powers that be will manage to keep this somewhere until after the election. Cynical old me.

    If it got to the Senate, the AWB renewal would get attached to it by the anti dems and rinos. So it would get trashed.
     
  3. Mr. Kook

    Mr. Kook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    Kansas
    You know I wonder if a person who applies for a LEO position, does the job and then quites would be allowed nationwide concealed carry.

    Just a thought.
     
  4. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    I haven't seen the latest wording of the bill, but IIRC the person must retire to qualify. That usually means 20 -30 years of service. Not just get hired, quite three months later and be covered under this bill.

    I support it because I believe it's a small victory for gun-rights, and a logical first step toward nationwide CCW for all.

    For full disclosure I'm a LEO, but I'm a fed so I already have nationwide CCW, and I won't retire for a couple of decades.
     
  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I think Sensenbrenner is right.
     
  6. pittspilot

    pittspilot Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    AZ, Free at last!
    How does someone this dumb get elected to Congress? That's my question.
     
  7. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,272
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Well, where else would you expect someone to go who doesn't have the skills to hack it in the private sector?
     
  8. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    7,377
    Location:
    CA
    The more armed Americans, the better, IMHO.
     
  9. Frohickey

    Frohickey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,018
    Location:
    People's Republic of **********
    I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner on this one.

    LEAA has been trying to get this off the ground, and while the motives are honorable, the way it is doing it is not.
    I think that this should not pass as written.
     
  10. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Bush has so far signed everything that has made it to his desk. He hasn't vetoed anything at all, and I think he will sign this too. It is not a test of his mettle on gun issues at all.

    I believe he will sign just about anything Congress sends him. Heck, he thought the Campaign Finance Reform was unconstitutional, and still signed it.
     
  11. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    Perhaps a constitutional scholar could 'splain to me which of the 18 things that congress is empowered to do by article 1 section 8 would be the controlling justification for this piece of horse hockey.

    Let's see, raise and support an army? :uhoh:
     
  12. Ironbarr

    Ironbarr Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Virginia
    Okay - back to the float purpose...

    What is the latest? Is it moving? Has it been passed at the 11th hour in a room of three while the rest are out to lunch? Or campaigning? Or serving on some committee elsewhere?

    I thought this thread would be an alert medium keeping us informed of any activity.

    Am I wrong?

    -Andy
     
  13. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    A bad law is a bad law is a bad law. Cops don't have more rights than mere commoners. They don't deserve special treatment or privileges.
     
  14. geegee

    geegee Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    North Texas
    Although not a LEO, I'm a Life Member of LEAA. I have to say that while I do support the notion of having all LEO's having national carry priveleges, it's more because I want national reciprocity for all CHL holders, not just LEO's. I'd feel much better about supporting HR 218 if I knew they were in my corner on this important issue.

    I appreciate the position LEAA takes on a law abiding citizen's right to carry (they are strongly in favor), but I can't say I'm assured they'll pursue national reciprocity for citizens like myself after they win their fight. I guess my take on it is that where gun freedoms are concerned, our victories tend to be won incrementally. I don't like it, but that does appear to be the case. :mad:
     
  15. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,210
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Right now, private citizens with CCW permits can carry more places then sworn officers. That's right...while many states offer reciprocity for the holders of CCWs few recognize a peace officer from another state. If they do, it's usually only in a duty status. To my knowledge only Indiana grants peace officers from other states right to carry. So I don't see how this is making peace officers more equal.

    Like DMF said, it's an important first step to your CCW being as universally recognized as your drivers license.

    Jeff
     
  16. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Jeff, the answer for the situation you described is for police officers to get a CCW permit for the state they live in.

    It should be easy to do unless they live in a state that doesn't give out CCW permits, in which case they need to change state law not federal law.
     
  17. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    Mr. Gunman,

    That may be a problem. You are asking that the instruments of the state be subjected to the same requirements that lowly citizens be subjected to. Not good.
     
  18. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,565
    Location:
    NE PA
    Yeah, thats the answer, get a CCW for your state

    My CCW, which I had before I became a LEO, and continue to keep amounted to paying a fee, passing a background check and having three people get called by a sheriff, who asked.......is this guy ok. No firearms test, no knowledge of when I can or can not use my firearms......nothing.

    Now, to become a LEO I had to pass a background check, pass a physical check, pass a pysch test......undergo countless tests of my knowledge of both civil and criminal law, to include the use of force and deadly force. When I can use it, when I can't. Pass a firearms qualification (yearly or quarterly depending upon your state and/or dept regs) undergo yearly state and department legal updates, etc.....

    Which of the above do you think makes me more qualified to carry? And if I have to use my weapon in another state, everything I do will be based upon the fact that I am a LEO, not someone carrying under a CCW.

    Now before the crazies come out of the closet and jump all over my posting, I think a CCW......your CCW, my CCW, should be recognized by every state, much like drivers licenses are.
     
  19. Cybercop

    Cybercop Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    Cols, OH
    I think this phrase is the most important::

    The provision drew the ire of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
    Wisconsin Republican and committee chairman.
    "I believe it violates the principles of federalism and undermines the
    authorities of the states," said Mr. Sensenbrenner, the only Republican who
    did not support the bill.

    So why does this bill violate states rights and the AWB (extention) dosen't?! I plan to throw this right back in their faces :cuss:

    Jim
     
  20. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Steve in PA,

    It sucks that LEO's have to comply with the same laws the rest of us do, doesn't it?

    If the law says you need a CCW permit, then you need a CCW permit.

    I have a lot of experience fishing. Been doing it all my life. Still, I have to have a license to do it. Too bad, but its just the way it is.
     
  21. Augustwest

    Augustwest Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Southern New England
    The only possible good I see in this bill is that it might pave the way for some sort of equal protection case for national CCW.

    A thousand pardons to any of the LEO's on this board, but it doesn't matter how many hoops you had to jump through in order to get your badge, you're still citizens, and not, therefore, entitled to any special governmental privileges or freedoms from the infringements of rights.
     
  22. Diggler

    Diggler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,297
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I doubt it.

    Nothing against LEOs, but I imagine most of them will be "I got mine" and won't fight as hard for nationwide CCW for the 'rest' of us.

    How many poor Americans (who don't pay ANY income tax) do you see fighting for tax cuts??
     
  23. Steve in PA

    Steve in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    2,565
    Location:
    NE PA
    But to which standard will I be held to if I am involved in an out of state deadly force encounter?

    So, if I'm just a citizen, then why am I required to "jump through the hoops"?
     
  24. Werewolf

    Werewolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,192
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The bill will never make it thru the Senate. If it does - as one poster already noted - it will probably have the AWB renewal attached to it which will kill it in the house. The bill is DOA.

    That said I believe the bill is unconstitutional as it is in direct opposition to the 10th Amendment which reads:

    Amendment X
    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.


    In addition I am of the opinion that it clashes with the constitutional prohibition against laws creating special classes of people which this bill clearly does.

    If by some miniscule chance the bill does make it to law - it will IMO be instantly challenged by many state AG's - even pro-gun ones in shall issue states - and most definitely by the AG's of Ca, Md, Ma, Il and Wi.
     
  25. Augustwest

    Augustwest Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Southern New England
    The hoops are part of your job application, and your state or community requires them of someone who wants your job.

    And frankly, I find any LEO who writes, "So, if I'm just a citizen..." really disconcerting. I dimly recall a time (well, maybe I've just read about it) when the state existed to serve the people...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page