National CCW for Police Passes Committee

[sendec]

Apparently here a great LEO is one who does'nt ever question anyone, never makes an arrest, doesnt know anything, takes out the trash and washes peoples' cars, never serves a warrant, dare not shoot well, and will listen to and more importantly do whatever some twit on the net thinks is right, SCOTUS be darned.........

Whatever......

 

[hammer4nc]

.......when yer in a hole, STOP diggin!

 

[alan]

Re mention of private citizens taking "the police marksmanship test" as a qualifier for national concealed carry, a quick thought or two.

While I shot National Match Course Competition (High Power Rifle) for many years, that was a while ago, so let that slide. Besides, shooting a rifle and shooting a pistol are two very different things.

More recently, I've been active in IPSC Copmpetition, and a bit of IDPA too. Now and then, we get police officers and others in "law enforcement" participating in these matches, shooting competitions to be sure, which are NOT "real world" situations, though it is reasonable to assume that they do show something about an individuals shooting/gun handling skills.

With regard to some, not to say all of the above mentioned police/trained law enforcement personnel, but most certainly some of them, they have no more business going about armed than does my three year old nephew. They would likely be more of a menace to themselves and to the law abiding population, than to criminals.

As to this "police marksmanship test" mentioned in earlier posts, I for one wonder as to how the hell these people ever got through it, for if the ones I've seen did pass some sort of shooting proficiency test at one time, they certainly seem to have forgotten anything that they might ever have known.

As to the general idea of allowing retired or former LE persons any sort of special privilege, as seems to have been proposed, that is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard, and I have heard a few dumb ideas in my 70 plus years.

 

[lostone1413]

Who out their that backs the 2nd amendment could ever support a bill like that?? Remember their union supports Kerry who is more anti-gun then even Kennedy. I know that some LEO's here will say they don't go along with their union getting behind Kerry but you must remember that it is the rank and file that puts the union officers in their job

 

[Diggler]

Especially when the mantra of the left is "only police and military should have guns..."

Here we go...

By the way, how about raising the speed limit nationally for LEO's to 90 mph? Just because you have all the training to drive faster. Of course we'll all have to go 65-70. Is that a good law?

 

[Frohickey]

Diggler

ouch

You ought to send that little bit to Rep. Sensenbrenner to use in the debates against the passing of HR218.

 

[FedDC]

As long as there are people on here that routinely talk about killing LEOs because they don't think they deserved to be pulled over or have a warrant served at their house, no, I will not support unrestricted CCW. I do support nationwide CCW for all of us, LEOs and civilians (yes, I said it) alike. When MO passed their CCW law, the first thing I did was to send my dad a new IWB holster for his 1911.

CCW is a gradual process, not an overnight change. It didn't come overnight from state to state and it will not come overnight from the Fed Gov. It will only come in steps and the first logical step is for LEOs to carry and prove that it is not detrimental. As far as the fighting to help non LEOs...with the attitudes I see here, I would be hesitant to fight for those that fight against me. If we continue to bicker about who gets what first, we will end up doing nothing more than defeating ourselves.
Sendec is right, the only LEOs that folks seem to think are "Good" are the ones that do nothing, have revolvers that they can't shoot, wear a dress uniform, have long hair, and just say hi to everyone they meet...god forbd they serve a warrant or enforce a law.

 

[lostone1413]

I for one say everyone or no one. I've known enough LEO's that think the average person shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. Their union backing Kerry tells me all i'd need to know. Like said it is the general membership that puts the union officers in office so that right their tells you how the majority really thinks

 

[VaniB.]

Another good reason to dump this bill, is that I just heard a little while ago from a law enforcement friend THAT FEINSTEIN ATTACHED THE AWB EXTENSION TO IT.

Now... tell me you didn't see that coming!

 

[txgho1911]

I've started using my ignore list tonight

Added three ids to it.
National CCW for leo is an inadequate solution.
LEOs need to step up and speak for themselves and loudly to all audiences instead of allowing the FOPs and other managed orgs speak for them if they are not aligned with the memberships.
I have read a question in this thread and later read on finding no answers. Every one needs to at least try to educate family on what is involved in RKBA. Gov schools are not going to teach it. Universities will twist and try to outlaw it. Congress critters will need assistance in getting back to basics and even considering constitutional revival.

 

[alan]

Another good reason to dump this bill, is that I just heard a little while ago from a law enforcement friend THAT FEINSTEIN ATTACHED THE AWB EXTENSION TO IT.

The above from VaniB.

It's my understanding that the bill in question, which by the way, I believe to be a terrible proposal, was just passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. I therefore doubt that even Slick Dianne could attach an amendment to a House bill, when same hasn't gotten to the Senate.

I have no doubt concerning her trying such a tactic, which is another reason to tell your senators that H.R. 218 should be opposed. This aside, the pressure against reauthorization of the ban on so-called assault weapons must be maintained.

 

[TimW]

My brother is a sheriff's deputy and I was going to go into LE work until back surgery nixed that idea.

I am also a Bill of Rights voluptuary....they mean what they say, and say what they mean. A national CCW "permit" system shouldn't be necessary. And, yes, since the military gets to carry select-fire weaps, I think citizens should be allowed to as well.

That said, with the exception of this last bill "granting" recognition to out-of-state CCW holders, law enforcement agencies have fought against RKBA laws. The police and sheriffs unions send their paid representatives down to the state house to testify how bad such and such bill is going to be (this last time, AZDPS basically said nothing about it...).

With a few exception of some of the old-timers I've met in the Phoenix area (esp. those that have grown up in Arizona or around guns), the distinct vibe I've gotten from LEOs here is that they don't like citizens with guns running around town. this is especially prevalent in Tempe. Glendale was going down the Dark Path until a couple years ago when some activism mostly cured it.

So, now we have a situation where LEOs want the ability to carry CCW nationwide because "they're never really off duty." Well, I'm never really 'off duty' either from protecting myself and my family. Or from helping protect our country from bad guys (if ever need be).

As stated, here's a group that, by and large, has protested the ability of citizens to arm themselves for their protection. Now they want us to help pass a law that arms them, but not us.

What I forsee is that, as also stated, if this goes through, LEOs will suddenly (again, by and large) be unavailable to help a similar bill go through for us Average Joe's and Jane's. Sorry, no deal.

Of course, then there's the whole idea of having the Feds getting involved in what is a State's rights issue. Again, no deal.

 

[cordex]

Forgive my ignorance, but has giving LEOs the authority to carry concealed firearms off duty ever helped the later passage of shall-issue CCW laws?

I'm also put off by Sendec and FedDC's "Woe is me, everyone hates us!" act. And since I'm not pushing for yet more special treatment for LEOs, I must be a cop-hater, right?

On the other hand, LEOs such as stevelyn who oppose the bill even though they are in a position to "get theirs" - because they see it as unfair and wrong - earn respect in my eyes.

 

[Gray Peterson]

At that point I honestly believe that we will have reciprocity between about forty states that will honor each others permits. The last dreg states won't want to honor our permits. When we have a large enough number of votes, I predict that we will attempt to pass a federal law to force unfriendly states to honor other states permits, just like we honor every states marriage or a drivers licenseses.

Here here, Corriea. I am getting a migraine from the sheer and utter STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE in this thread. I've heard references to National CCW and Federal Permit in here.

Let's get one thing straight, folks: The national LEO CCW law is not a "federal permitting" scheme. Neither is the proposed SAFE Act that is HR 990 that would give us what we really want.

What the SAFE Act does is state that if you have a permit from any state, you can carry in every state in the US, plus DC and the territories. There's NO Federal permitting scheme, PERIOD. It merely re-emphasizes that licenses must be recognized between states, and it is completely CONSTITUTIONAL! Read Article 4, Section's 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, which states that the states must recognize each others acts, records, and judicial proceedings, and that Congress has the power to direct how they are recognized.

LEO CCW should be struck down on the merits that it gives police too much power and we'll lose then in the fight to put shall-issue into states that are stubbornly refusing without LEO support. You start talking about LEO CCW being a "federal permit" in a paranoid manner and start thinking of the LEO CCW or SAFE as a method of federal gun control rather than what it really is, then people will stop listening to you because you'd be spouting utter nonsense and accusing people of being "anti-constitutional".

ARGH. We don't need anti-gunners to keep us down. We do that plenty ourselves.

 

[TimW]

Lonnie wrote:

What the SAFE Act does is state that if you have a permit from any state, you can carry in every state in the US, plus DC and the territories. There's NO Federal permitting scheme, PERIOD. It merely re-emphasizes that licenses must be recognized between states, and it is completely CONSTITUTIONAL! Read Article 4, Section's 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, which states that the states must recognize each others acts, records, and judicial proceedings, and that Congress has the power to direct how they are recognized.

By this very thing, CCW permits should ALREADY be recognized and such SAFE act rendered MOOT. This also means that, to the extent government should be involved in marriages at all, ALL marriages should be recognized among the states.

IMO, this picking and choosing about what licenses/rights/records/acts is silly. If the states are ALREADY required to recognize these things, why are we having this discussion?

Oh yeah, because SCOTUS has said that, well, it really doesn't mean all that, since states don't HAVE to recognize the acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states when "public policy or safety" is concerned.

Thus, we're using a court system to tell the court system that, well, they are doing something unconsitutional?

Sorry, I just don't buy that as an argument. And this doesn't even get into the LEO-CCW class argument.

 

[Frohickey]

Lonnie Wilson...

...there is a SCOTUS case talking about the the Article 4 Section 1 portion of the US Constitution, otherwise known as the 'Full faith and credit" part. It revolved around a divorce proceeding and the will of a man who married a woman, went to another state to divorce the woman, and married another woman.

I think that the gist of the case is that the 1st state does not have to recognize the divorce granted in the 2nd state.

 

[CZ-100]

No, it's not a step in the right direction.

Until the LEO requirement is removed, the law is an abomination. LEOs already think they're better than us mere serfs (as evidenced by a thread in the Roundtable forum), we don't need to add to that.

I agree... All of us or None of us..

They are not better than the rest of us.

 

[Steve in PA]

 

[Frohickey]

HR218 JUST PASSED THE HOUSE

HR218 JUST PASSED THE HOUSE...

Prepare to have this bill morphed and bastardized by Diane Feinswine as the AWB Reauthorization bill.

 

[Denko]

Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? I read an article at the worldnet daily site that said the following police unions fought for this law.Law Enforcement Alliance of America,the National Association of Police Organizations and the National Law Enforcement council.Jim Fotis pres. of the LEAA said--Hopefully we will not lose one more police officer while we wait for this long overdue common sense bill to become the law of the land.What about my life? Why do I not have the same right to protect myself?I am sure these police unions will stand up for the right to carry for all of us,right? The union represents the membership,that membership cares about us citizens,right?

 

[alan]

Denko:

I've been wrong before and I might be wrong here too but one would think that dumb ????s/union bureaucrats like Mr. Fotis would be smart enough to realize what this legislation, if passed, could end up doing, and adhere to Abe Lincoln's old adage, the one that spoke of the fact that people tend to sound a lot smarter with their mouths shut, than they do with their mouths open. Asas, that might be to much to expect.

By the way, what the legislation could end up doing, possible attachments aside, is to drive one hellish large wedge between the law abiding population, and police officers, either working or retired. Surely he can see that possibility, can't he, or might this be a replay of the ploy used to obtain law enforcement support for that business about one loosing their rights over a claim of abuse?

When that gambit turned out to bite police on the ass, they cried loud and long, but at that point, it was to late, for the damage had been done.

By the way, I have no idea at all as to whether or not you personally are, or ever have been a union member, or even a mamber of any large organization, a rank and file member that it, so I will ask a question. Do you really think that UNION LEADERSHIP wants anything other than dues, obedience and silence from the rank and file? Also, how often do you think that they have to contend with anything other than the above mentioned?

 

[MarkDido]

Will these LEOs and retired LEOs have a duty and responsibility to act if they witness a crime?

If not, and the sole purpose of allowing them to carry concealed anywhere in the country is for their owm protection, then we have a disparity with "equal protection under the law"

 

[goalie]

Will these LEOs and retired LEOs have a duty and responsibility to act if they witness a crime?

If not, and the sole purpose of allowing them to carry concealed anywhere in the country is for their owm protection, then we have a disparity with "equal protection under the law"

BING BING BING, we have a winner.

 

[alan]

All:

The following question has been asked by others, re special privelege for le, active and retired. What ever happened to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW? Seems like a good question.

If earlier comment to the effect that The House has actually passed this abomination is correct, that might be a good question to put to your congress critters. Finding out how yours voted, and rememnbering their vote come election day might also be worth while, though that is something for each of you to evaluate.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

The following question has been asked by others, re special privelege for le, active and retired. What ever happened to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW? Seems like a good question.

I've heard this arguement many times in the various threads debating this issue. If you really think that is the case then how do you account for the states that don't allow citizens to carry firearms at all letting police carry? Are you stating that you don't think police in those states should be able to carry a weapon? I really don't know what world some of you people are living in where you think no one ever gets any kind of priviledge over someone else. This country is based on special priviledges......ala capitalism. The people with money will ALWAYS get what they want more than the people without....these are just the facts of life, but I don't hear anybody bitching about that. Due to people's jobs certain people are allowed to have certain things that others are not.

You complain about police being able to have assault weapons, hi-cap mags, and carry in places you can't. How come I don't hear anyone complaining about military people getting machine guns, hand grenades, SAWS, and missiles? After all they're just people too.....are they any better than you or me? Or how about CIA and Intelligence agents with top secret clearances.....are they any better? How come they get to know everything that goes on and we don't......nonsense I say! What about construction workers that are able to use explosives for demolishion purposes. I don't hear anybody saying that they shouldn't be able to use explosives since everyone else can't have it.

I understand the frustration because I feel it as well. I don't think gun laws are right in this country and I will be the first one to fight them. But this attitude that we live in a vacumn and everything should be completely equal is not helping matters. You're just going to cut off your nose to spite your face and then NO ONE is going to be able to have any firearms. As it has been said before, the antis are winning because they're taking one step at a time. They realize they can't just pass a bill that bans all private ownership of firearms and they take whatever little bits they can get. Some of us on the otherhand refuse to support anything short of total repeal of all gun laws or politicans who support the same. Ideals are great, but knowing reality is much more productive for achieving your goals.