Illinois LE want more privileges for themselves...

[buzz_knox]

Fighting against this does us absolutely no good at best and harm at worst.

This same argument was advanced concerning HR218. The end result will be the same as for that bill.

Piecemilling CC reform based on classes of individuals doesn't work. Supporting universal CC reform does because those that otherwise would redraw the line behind themselves won't be able to.

 

[Soybomb]

This same argument was advanced concerning HR218. The end result will be the same as for that bill.

How has leosa harmed our cause in any way? If you can't pass a bill that allows cops to carry you don't have a chance of passing a bill that allows everyone to carry.

 

[buzz_knox]

How has leosa harmed our cause in any way? If you can't pass a bill that allows cops to carry you don't have a chance of passing a bill that allows everyone to carry.

And if you pass the bill letting cops carry, you take away any reason for the chiefs/unions/etc to support concealed carry for the rest. That's precisely what happened with HR218, and nearly every effort that involved the phrase "help us now and we'll help you later."

 

[Art Eatman]

"A local police group is pushing for legislation that would increase their safety by letting off-duty parole agents carry weapons."

Odds are, they're at more risk off-duty than the average cop. They have more interaction with specific Bad Guys on a regular basis.

The more laws of this sort that get passed help us with our own efforts to expand CHL freedoms. In this case, the thrust is, "Hey, he's not a regular cop; why not us?"

Forget the 2nd Amendment stuff in the arguments. We have to deal with the politics of the world as it is, and every little bit helps.

2A stuff is what you do when you get directly involved in politics at the local level, helping to get your kind of candidate on the ballot. Or helping fund lawsuits, etc. You do that sort of stuff, right?

Art

 

[Autolycus]

Art Eatman: I disagree with the idea that it will help us? I cannot understand why you suggest that people will see a difference between a cop and a parole officer? I do see that difference but I believe most people will see the fact they are a member of the law enforcement community (not necessarily a LEO with the priveledge of carrying). These people will say that it is common sense for the LEOs to need a gun, and common sense is that we (non LEOs) do not need a gun.

 

[buzz_knox]

I guess I just don't see where this helps. We know from experience that civilian carry will face opposition from these groups, so supporting class based reform simply eliminates an opportunity to force them to support universal reform. To add to this, has the FOP even hinted that it'd support civilian carry in response to civilian support for this?

Class based reform also provides an easy excuse to deny civilian carry later on. "We gave these cops the right to carry because they face these threats. Civilian's don't, and thus don't have the need." Or, to use the argument touted on this very board "these cops should carry because they've been through X hours of training, have had Y profiles and checks run, and Z hours of probation. Civilians have none of that and thus can't be trusted."

I'd also agree with Tecumseh. Most people are not aware of the difference between parole officers and cops.

 

[bensdad]

Odds are, they're at more risk off-duty than the average cop.

Alright, lets let level of risk be a determining factor in who should get CCW and who should not... That IS what you're saying.

My wife is at a higher risk level for rape than I am. Surely, she should be afforded a special privilege to carry.

I'm starting to see the light.

 

[romma]

For some on this board, the only thing in common is an affinity for firearms, ideology wise, it's a whole different ball game!

I can understand apprehension to allow yet another special class or group of anybody else to carry while the rest get left behind. I personally am opposed to this request by parole officers.

I hope Illinois gets shall issue soon! Go Illinois!!

 

[exar]

+1 on post #49.
HEAR, HEAR!!!

 

[.cheese.]

The way I see this is simple:

A police officer is only a police officer when on duty. When off duty he/she is just a citizen/civilian like any other. If they can carry off-duty, but other civilians can't, then that's discriminating on the basis of employment.

 

[Don Gwinn]

You can see it any way you want, but there are two problems with that:

1. It's irrelevant. Gnashing your teeth over what's "fair" and what's not is for people too young to have learned that you have to go out and get what you need/want, and complaining that you're not getting your fair share usually doesn't work.

2. It's not true. In many jurisdictions, an off-duty cop has the same duty to make arrests off duty as he does on duty. I don't have to do that, he does. It's not the same.
Even if he doesn't, he still spends his on-duty hours purposely seeking out criminals so that he might antagonize them. I don't do that for a living. More risk for him, less risk for me.
Before you say it--AGAIN--no, I don't mean that he "deserves" to carry more than I do, or he's "better" than I am. But pretending that difference doesn't exist is disingenuous and it hurts our credibility. Our argument should be that the difference exists but is irrelevant to our right to keep and bear arms. I don't get what's so difficult about this.

Tecumseh, regarding your list of all the bad police unions and such who favor gun control, check out this link:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/underfire/?p=39#comment-110

Now, ask yourself--do you really want to be on her side instead of on the side of Jeff White, Matt Guest, 4V50 Gary, ISP2650 . . . . are cops so bad that you'd rather side with the antis?

 

[Jeff White]

A police officer is only a police officer when on duty. When off duty he/she is just a citizen/civilian like any other.

And that's where you'd be wrong. A peace officer is a peace officer whenever he/she is within the boundaries of his/her jurisdiction on duty or off. Many agencies require off duty carry of weapons and credentials and require that they take some kind of action if a crime is committed in their presence.

If they can carry off-duty, but other civilians can't, then that's discriminating on the basis of employment.

Not when you are required to act in your official capacity by your employer if off duty and confronted with a situation.

Jeff

 

[buzz_knox]

Our argument should be that the difference exists but is irrelevant to our right to keep and bear arms. I don't get what's so difficult about this.

You are arguing from the 2nd Amendment point of view, which Art says to discount as its time for politics.

Here's the problem. There is no advantage to the concealed carry reform movement to support class based reform and further enshrine special privileges for groups based on their perceived needs. It is far too easy to distinguish this kind of legislation from general carry reform.

. . . . are cops so bad that you'd rather side with the antis?

So we're back to the "you're either with us or against us" thing? In reality, isn't support for class based reform really a benefit to antis since it further divides government agents from the rest of the population, and insures that they and their unions have no reason to support general carry reform?

 

[gc70]

LEOs and some other government agents are required to be armed as part of their job. And some LEOs are required to be armed 24/7. Those are job requirements rather than concealed carry privileges.

Any other government agents who want the privilege of carrying concealed should line up with every other citizen. I will not ask my legislators to grant special privileges to government employees.

 

[Jeff White]

Perhaps if some of you would actually do a little research and ask the source instead of looking on some anti's webpage you might find out the truth.

From the FOP website:
http://www.fop.net/legislative/oppose.shtml

Legislation Opposed by the National Fraternal Order of Police

* H.R. 258 (Jackson-Lee, D-TX), the "Traffic Stops Along the Border Statistics Study Act," would require the U.S. Attorney General to collect race and other data on traffic stops made by State and local law enforcement officers;
* H.R. 460 (Rangel, D-NY), the "Crack Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act," would eliminate the current mandatory minimum penalties for the possession of certain quantities of crack cocaine;
* H.R. 800 (Miller, D-CA), the "Employee Free Choice Act," would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots in the selection or certification on a union as the bargaining units with a "card check" system;
* H.R. 818 (Rangel, D-NY), the "Ex-Offender Voting Rights Act," would restore the right to vote in Federal elections to released felons who are denied that right by the State in which they reside;
* S. 447 (Feingold, D-WI), the "Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act," would abolish the death penalty option for all Federal crimes which currently carry that penalty;
* Legislation which would mandate participation in Social Security for all newly hired State and local employees;
* Legislation which would weaken the overtime protections for law enforcement officers in current Federal regulations;
* Legislation or amendments that would have the effect of weakening P.L. 106-185, the "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000";
* Legislation which would create or fund "civilian review boards" of law enforcement at any level of government;
* Legislation which would normalize relations with Cuba until that nation ceases to be a safe harbor for cop-killers and other fugitives; and
* Legislation that would repeal the "Tiahrt Amendment" on the sharing of law enforcement sensitive data on firearms traces;

For more information, please feel free to contact the National Legislative Office at (202) 547-8189 or via e-mail.

http://www.fop.net/legislative/support.shtml

Legislation Supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police

* H.R. 79 (Bartlett, R-MD), the "Powder Crack Cocaine Penalty Equalization Act," would eliminate the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine offenses by changing the applicable amounts for powder cocaine to those currently applicable to crack cocaine;
* H.R. 82 (Berman, D-CA), the "Social Security Fairness Act," would repeal both the "Windfall Elimination Provision" and the "Government Pension Offset" in current Social Security law;
* H.R. 146 (Green, D-TX), the "Law Enforcement Officers Flag Memorial Act," would provide the families of deceased law enforcement officers with a flag that has been flown over the U.S. Capitol;
* H.R. 172 (Lee, D-CA), the "Community Partners Next Door Act," would establish a housing program that would provide a fifty percent (50%) discount for teachers, teacher assistants, administrators, and public safety officers purchasing certain eligible asset properties for use as their primary residence, including a $100 downpayment on any related insured mortgage, and a higher Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan limit for such purchases in high cost areas;
* H.R. 304 (Pearce, R-NM), the "Communities Leading Everyone Away From Narcotics Through Online Warning Notification (CLEAN TOWN) Act," would establish a registry for persons convicted of certain drug dealing offenses so that communities can be made aware of the presence of these offenders;
* H.R. 545 (Udall, D-NM), the "Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act," would make funds available from the "Combat Meth Act" for tribal governments;
* H.R. 688 (Ramstad, R-MN), the "State and Local Law Enforcement Officers' Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act," would protect the due process rights of officers during internal investigations;
* H.R. 923 (Lewis, D-GA), the "Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act," would establish an Unsolved Crimes Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and permit the Inspector Generals in executive branch departments and agencies to work voluntarily with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) on cold cases;
* H.R. 980 (Kildee, D-MI), the "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," would recognize the right of law enforcement and other public safety officers to bargain collectively with their employers;
* H.R. 1073 (Filner, D-CA), the "Law Enforcement Officers Equity Act," would provide 6 (c) benefits to approximately 30,000 Federal law enforcement officers who currently do not have them;
* H.R. 1118 (Keller, R-FL), the "Drug Trafficking Elimination Act of 2007," would increase penalties for dealers of large quantities of marijuana, methamphetamines, and heroin and create a mandatory sentences for anyone caught dealing drugs to a pregnant woman or anyone under the age of twenty-one (21)and for anyone found to be working in a large drug trafficking organization;
* H.R. 1640 (Pearce, R-NM), the "Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act," would exempt individuals from civil liability for reporting suspicious behavior to Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies;
* H.R. 1661 (Van Hollen, D-MD), the "Federal Law Enforcement Pension Adjustment Equity Act," would permit certain annuitants of the retirement programs of the United States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants would otherwise be entitled as a result of new salary schedules;
* H.R. 1700 (Weiner, D-NY), the "COPS Improvement Act," would provide full funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the programs it administers;
* H.R. 2281 (Porter, R-NV), the "Sergeant Henry Prendes Memorial Act," would close a loophole in current law and create a new Federal criminal offense for the killing, the attempt to kill or conspiring to kill, any public safety officer for a public agency that receives Federal funding;
* H.R. 2291, (Pearce, R-NM), would provide immunity from civil liability for bringing suspicious behavior to the attention of security personnel or law enforcement officers;
* H.J.Res. 12 (Murtha, D-PA), would amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States;
* S. 4 (Reid, D-NV), the "Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act," specifically Section 2005 of the bill, which would create within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security an Office for the Prevention of Terrorism;
* S. 206 (Feinstein, D-CA), the "Social Security Fairness Act," would repeal both the "Windfall Elimination Provision" and the "Government Pension Offset" in current Social Security law;
* S. 231 (Feinstein, D-CA), would authorize full funding for the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs thorugh 2012;
* S. 294 (Lautenberg, D-NJ), the "Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act," would improve the security on Amtrak rail lines and provide funding to hire additional Amtrak police and upgrade their equipment;
* S. 368 (Biden, D-DE), the "COPS Improvement Act," would establish the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) as a distinct entity within the U.S. Department of Justice and reauthorize the law enforcement officer hiring program, as well as reauthorizes funds for technology grants and community prosecutors;
* S. 376 (Leahy, D-VT), the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," would improve the provisions related to carriage of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers;
* S. 449 (Biden, D-DE), the "State and Local Law Enforcement Officers' Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act," would protect the due process rights of officers during internal investigations;
* S. 456 (Feinstein, D-CA), the "Gang Abatement and Prevention Act," is a comprehensive, national approach to the problem of gang violence which would establish a High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Area (HIIGAA) program to facilitate greater cooperation between local, State and Federal law enforcement in identifying, targeting, and eliminating violent gangs in areas where gang activity is particularly prevalent and define new offenses which will enable law enforcement to fight gangs and gang-related activity more effectively;
* S. 513 (Leahy, D-VT), would repeal the "Insurrection Act Rider" and restore the previous statutory authority for the use of U.S. Armed Forces in a domestic law enforcement capacity;
* S. 535 (Dodd, D-CT), the "Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act," would establish an Unsolved Crimes Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and permit the Inspector Generals in executive branch departments and agencies to work voluntarily with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) on cold cases;
* S. 1369, (Collins, R-ME), would provide immunity from civil liability for bringing suspicious behavior to the attention of security personnel or law enforcement officers;
* Legislation to provide Federal law enforcement officers with a rebuttable presumption that a causal connection exists between their occupation and heart, lung, and hypertension disorders;
* Legislation which would protect the personal information of law enforcement officers and their families from public access;
* Legislation to exempt retired law enforcement officers from all Federal, State, and local taxes on their retirement income, regardless of their place of residence; and
* Legislation entitled the "Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act" to address the concerns of the more than 70,000 Federal uniformed law enforcement officers.

For more information, please feel free to contact the National Legislative Office at (202) 547-8189 or via e-mail.

And it might just do some of you good to read the information at this link:
http://www.fop.net/publications/archives/legislation/index.shtml

You might be surprised to find that the FOP hasn't been supporting gun control. Like I said in an earlier post, after the membership fired Dewey Stokes as president, the FOP hasn't taken a stand on gun control. According to Dave Kopel's website, the Tiahrt Amendment is good for our cause, although not as strong as it could be, so isn't opposing it's repeal supporting us?

Of course that won't be as comforting to some of you who may be justifying your lack of personal participation in this fight because the cops are against us. You guys have let the divide and conquer plan that Josh Sugarman hashed when he came up with the idea to vilify so called assault weapons and that the Clinton Justice Department enacted by buying uniformed officers for photo ops and buying support of chiefs organizations with grant money. Every survey of police officers I've ever seen or participated in, from the Police Magazine survey last year, to the Southern Police Officer's Benefit Association survey that was done about the time the Clinton anti-gun push started has shown that police officers overwhelmingly support the 2d Amendment. Yet when the Police Magazine survey was posted here many of you derided it because the results weren't ideologically pure enough for you. Although I would bet if we took an honest survey here at THR you'd find that our members are not as ideologically pure as you would like either. It appears some of you are going to have to find another excuse to hate cops. Your argument that we are all or even mostly anti gun just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Jeff

 

[coyote_jr]

Elitist crap - like in the middle ages when noblemen had arms - the peasants had to kneel.

The peasants in IL have arms too, sad thing is none of them are shooters.

 

[jselvy]

"All it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing"

These supposedly pro-arms officers do nothing.
I cannot remember the last last time I heard of a "Law" officer refusing to commit an action that is blatantly unconstitutional, such no warrant searches, roadblocks, casual searches, unlawful detaining due to incorrect color/height/hair style. Illinois Law Enforcement in particular has had integrity issues, so forgive me if I don't write you a blank check.

None for thee if none for me

No more special privileges,
No more immunity from prosecution
No more Piecemeal actions
If you want it, get it for all of us

end of story

Jefferson


P.S. In the future Kindly remove your boot from my neck before you ask for a favor

 

[bensdad]

It appears some of you are going to have to find another excuse to hate cops. Your argument that we are all or even mostly anti gun just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Some of us are taking this very personally. I don't hate cops. Never have. I don't care if you are anti, pro, or any other shmoe. I hate elitism. I hate special privilege. I hate authoritarianism. I hate being asked to support legislation that creates a difference between me and another American.

I hate the idea that some of us actually think this legislation is a good idea.

 

[TCB in TN]

Lucky for me I live in a state where I can have a Concealed Handgun Permit. But in spite of the fact that I have NEVER been arrested....... I too would opose any bill to grant further access to any rights that I as a law abiding citizen would not be granted.

BTW passion or not, you mods continually chide all on this site for any comments that are not "Highroad" and we should be able to expect better from you guys than that.

 

[Autolycus]

From the link Jeff White posted:

Legislation the FOP supports:

*Legislation which would protect the personal information of law enforcement officers and their families from public access;
* Legislation to exempt retired law enforcement officers from all Federal, State, and local taxes on their retirement income, regardless of their place of residence;
* S. 376 (Leahy, D-VT), the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," would improve the provisions related to carriage of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers;

And Legislation the FOP wishes to reapeal:

* Legislation that would repeal the "Tiahrt Amendment" on the sharing of law enforcement sensitive data on firearms traces;

So the FOP wishes to keep the Tiahrt Amendment. The FOP does not want their personal information made public. They also want to be tax exempt when they retire. And they want more carry provisions.

WOW! Sounds like they want a lot of priveledges that we as civilians do not need as we do not deal with dangerous folk on a daily basis.

 

[Jeff White]

So the FOP wishes to keep the Tiahrt Amendment.

And you want it repealed so that the Brady people and Bloomberg can get the raw info and distort it to use in lawsuits and propaganda? Why?

The FOP does not want their personal information made public.

I suppose you're all for home addresses of CCW holders being printed in the newspaper? After all a CCW permit is a government document and that information belongs to everyone.....

They also want to be tax exempt when they retire.

Illinois doesn't tax active duty military pay nor do they tax my Army retired pay. Several states have tax breaks for military pay or retired pay. How do you feel about that?

And they want more carry provisions.

Yes we do....To include carry for our families.

Jeff

 

[jselvy]

CCW holders are NOT public Servants, Cops are and Therefore their information should be public especially if they are still cops off-duty.

The average citizen gets taxed multiple times on his retirement why should the thugs in blue be any different.

Carry provisions for their family but not mine? Not gonna happen.

No more
Not another inch back
Cops need to understand that they are just citizens temporarily empowered by the state, nothing more.

If you want to crouch and lick the iron fist, I can't stop you. I will NOT.


Jefferson

 

[Autolycus]

Jeff White: I may have misread the FOP's view on the Tiahrt Amendment. The wording was not very clear to me.

As for the retirement checks not being taxed, I have a problem with that. Everyone should be forced to pay taxes or nobody should be forced to pay taxes. I dislike one group getting something while another does not. It creates the idea that some are more special than others. Military service, Fire service, and Police service (Civil services of all sorts) should not be given any special tax breaks or benefits. As they choose that line of work. It is noble of them but they should not be given prefferential treatment for their choice of employment.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you (you personally and LEOs in general) want carry for everyone because you would like your families to be able to carry. I assume that this is what you meant as I doubt it is CCW just for families of LEOs.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Forget the 2nd Amendment stuff in the arguments. We have to deal with the politics of the world as it is, and every little bit helps.

Art, in parts of the USA outside of IL, this might actually work. However,
these three pages of post/counterpost in-fighting is excactly what I remember
from when I left IL nearly 10 years. There's the usual "we're being oppressed"
followed by the usual "if we let another small segment get CCW, then it will
lead to CCW for all --just be patient" within the 2A community. I imagine this
tune will be moving into yet another decade. Yes, we are counting this cycle
in decades now for IL.

My only thought on how to improve this situation is for the usual dominant
personalities to suck their pride down for a few minutes, stop their incessant
swagger and do some honest research into a similar state that passed sweeping
CCW reform just within the last few years that was very similar to their own
situation at one time: MICHIGAN.

Has anyone in the ISRA leadership actually contacted their counterparts in
MI and said "Tell me --what worked for your guys? How did you get it done?"
Has anone in IL brought in some of their MI brethren and had them do some
presentations/workshops at the county level for a start? Apparently, MI did
something right and the guys in IL could use some pointers. Like I said, put
the pride aside, quit bickering, and ask for some outside help.

Tecumseh? Jeff? Don?

Mmmmkay. Hope I'm not writing the same post in 2017.

 

[GRB]

CCW holders are NOT public Servants, Cops are and Therefore their information should be public especially if they are still cops off-duty.

I selected the above words to quote not to atack the person who rwrote them but to give an example of what I believe to be one of the apparently most typical trains of thought on this subject.

Now for some rather factual information: The reason law enforcement officers do not want their information released to the public is because among the public they have many enemies, and I mean real enemies who would like to see them dead as opposed to say you and your neighbor disliking one another. In my career, I have arrested literally thousands of folks (that was in just 4 years in the Border Patrol), and then hundreds of people while in the now defunct U.S. Customs Service, and quite a few while working for DHS for the last few years. Getting arrested seems to piss off some people, and I have only ever arrested anyone based upon probable cause. I pride myself on being a stickler for the law and the rules when it comes to my job responsibilities and duties, yet I have had death threats made against me, and my family by some bad guys in my career.

Some of the people I have arrested actually have tried to do me great harm, others have tried to kill me, some have succeeded in doing me great harm though none yet at killing me). Some have threatened to 'get me' and or my family, others have not made such threats but as an LEO you often wonder if it is on their minds.

No I would not want my personal information released to the public, and those reasons are enough; but if not enough for you, here are some more:

Police often work in plain clothes, in unmarked vehicles. As a federal agent, I do so routinely. If every bad guy in the USA was able to access my photograph on the Internet, how well would I be able to accomplish my job when doing such things as surveillance? Not well at all. Now how could folks get my photo, heck they could get it when I leave work but they would not know for sure I am an LEO because I work in a building with other business than just my own agency; or they could get it based upon having my personal identifiers, also identifying me as an LEO, and then by coming t my home and taking my photo. This would also ruin the chances of me ever being able to do undercover work; and it would also be a threat to my safety and security beyond anything that should be expected of me as a public servant. I was hired to enforce federal laws that were being violated by criminals; I was not hired to place my life or that of my family into extra jeopardy because people like you want to identify me to the world. I am a public servant, not a public target, and that goes for all LEO's. Being a target is not part of the job, and certainly not something for which my family signed up.

Anyone who took my pic at my home could also post the pics of my family on the Internet based on that same info. Now do my family members deserve the same rights of a CCW holder? You do not want to see the CCW holder's personal info posted all over the place, nor do I; so why should my family's personal info be placed into the public eye.

In addition to the reasons above, here is another: It has become fairly common for drug cartels, and even some other groups, to post rewards for bad guys who kill a law enforcement officer in the USA. Thank goodness that this killing has not been carried out routinely. One of the reasons such has not been carried out is because cops are less of an easy target while at work, as opposed to while at home. At work they wear body armor, they are armed at all times, they often work in teams or have a partner, they have radio communication with the office, they are on a heightened alert status at virtually all times (if they know what is good for them), they have equipment other than guns and radios and body armor to protect them. Being at home is quite a different story. This is where they relax, and where they sleep, and where their families are located, and where they and their family members would be easier targets. So again, no I do not think my personal info should be released to the public because I am an LEO, just as I think a gun owners info should not be released as public information.

Back to the original point of the Parole Officers, all of the above goes for them ten fold, maybe even 20 fold. They handle so many prisoners on a daily basis and it is often overwhelming. They also come in contact with the family members of prisoners on a regular basis. All of these people often hold a grudge against them. Yes I can understand it being prudent to allow them to be armed while off duty. This would allow them to take official action to protect themselves while off duty if ever accosted by some revenge seeking felon, with whom they have dealt officially.

Do I think this will help or hinder 2nd Amendment causes? I do not know for sure, but I tend to think that the more the people in general are exposed to other people safely carrying firearms, the more likely they are to relax on everyone being allowed such. It sure isn't perfect but the if you know where to find a Utopia in which to live, please tell me about it. In real life, time after time, more and more states are becoming shall issue states, more and more states allow CCW of one type or another. We are winning slowly but surely, and I would note that few rights are protected, or political battles are won, by one fell swoop.

As for other issues that were brought up, such as tax exempt pensions, I like that personally for me, but I don’t like it even more because it is not fair. What I also do not like is the fact that when I retire I will have no social security because I was exempted from paying into it. Don’t let the word exempted fool you as being something good in that regard. As long as there is social security (which I believe should be abolished anyhow), I should have been allowed to participate in it as all other Americans have been allowed. Now of course, once retired I will get another job, and I will most likely have to pay into social security. Once I get enough quarters I will become eligible for social security payments when I am old enough. Now guess what, those benefits to me from social security will be chopped down to much less than normal because I had been employed by the federal government and receive a federal civil service retirement system pension! It does not matter that I paid in just as much as Joe Blow – he will get his own private pension, or state pension plus regular social security while mine will be reduced. In addition, when my wife who never worked as a civil servant, applies for social security based upon her paying into the system over her lifetime, tries to collect SS benefits, her’s too will be reduced because I had been a federal employee. Yes things should be equal for all law abiding Americans, I am all for that.

In that light with regard to arms rights, I vote. I also write to political personages, and I vehemently express my beliefs in the 2nd Amendment being for all citizens, and that the liberty to exercise such should be without reservation with the exception of convicted violent felons. I am a member of the NRA and the NYSRPA. I donate funds to 2nd amendment rights groups on a regular basis. I have convinced other people to support the 2nd amendment when they had previously been against it. I do my part, and yet I am a law enforcement officer - or should I say I am your enemy because you (and please remmebr this is a generic you) think that of me. This anti-cop rhetoric just gets to me sometimes, and if all you can spout forth is such rhetoric in support of your claims, then please at least do your homework next time, and support your arguments with some fact based reasoning.

All the best,
Glenn B