New National CCW Law?

[walker37]

I will say that I am one of the cops that will not be happy until national CCW is recognized for all citizens, not just LEO. I fought against HR218 as hard as i could. However, it is here whether we like it or not. My hope now is that those who said passing HR218 would help to later get a civilian version passed are correct.

fedDC:

I agree that we should have all stuck together. That was part of my arguement against HR218. A law maker from Indiana by the name of Hostettler introduced a bill similar to HR218 which would have included both civilians and LEOs. However, when I tried to push this bill with other LEOs, I was met with GREAT resistence! This is why I feel so many non LEO are against police only national carry. They feel that there is already too great a divide between citizens and LEO. I happen to agree. Then when you get police saying they should be "allowed" to have the tools to defend their and their families lives while on vacation, but a non-leo should not be "allowed" the same right, it causes even more division.

 

[lostone1413]

walker37 I agree with you 100% The LEO union and NRA should have been together to make this a national CCWfor everyone I to know many LEOs who agree that all of us should be able to have a National CCW but I know allot of LEOs who think that no non-leo should be allowed to carry a gun. Their is no way anyone can justify a LEO being able to carry in a state were the people who live in that state can't even carry. Without a doubt this bill has made a special class

 

[Jeff Timm]

Is this going to apply to all those "special deputies" who buy badges from corrupt local sherriffs?

Geoff
Who still wants the Federal Government to specify the numbers of Deputy US Marshalls and all other Federal Law Enforcement Officers.

Who also wants to know why the Federal Communications Commission has ARMED AGENTS?

 

[lostone1413]

I remember a time when in Illinois were I was they had almost as many "Special Deputies' as full time deputies. Been years ago but i'm sure back then they could carry a gun

 

[Morgan]

At the IPSC match shooters meeting this morning (after working OT and not getting home until about 5am - we'll see how the scores are ), I relayed that some of us finally received nationwide CCW.

I ask everyone, as I asked the collected sportsmen, to call, write, or e-mail your congresscritters, thanking them for supporting national concealed carry for cops, and urging them to do right by the rest of the citizenry.

Yeah, I got mine. Anyone know who might sponsor a bill for nationwide reciprocity? I'll call them personally, and offer my support and testimony.

Or you can keep bitching - your choice.

 

[lostone1413]

all men created equal. LOL give me a break. Have to laugh when I see in the paper all the LEOs wanting to extend the AWB This is just the start of a police state

 

[liliysdad]

Who also wants to know why the Federal Communications Commission has ARMED AGENTS?

The same reason the Postal Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the FBI, and the DEA have armed agents...to enforce the laws pertinent to their respective bureau. Anytime you make arrests or issue fines, you are bound to piss someone off. Why is this an issue in any way?

 

[deej]

What possible violation of FCC regulations could justify deadly force?

 

[Hypnogator]

What possible violation of FCC regulations could justify deadly force?

Oh, say, busting some drunken trucker for having a 25-watt CB, using profanity, etc., and he comes at you with a tire billy.

People have attacked officers over parking tickets!

 

[liliysdad]

What possible violation of FCC regulations could justify deadly force?

Ther offense is wholly irrelevent..its the reaction to the consequences that will get you.

 

[lostone1413]

The most dangerous job is working at a 24hr conveniece store but the thing is you get killed or hurt their allot of times your lucky if it is in the local paper let alone cost to cost on television

 

[0007]

At the end of the day regardless of how anybody "feels", the FACT is that this law will create more ill-will between leo and non-leos. It obviously already has.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". That's the reality of this. :banghead:

And there are pretty strict requirements built into the bill regarding the qualifications for those covered under this law.

On the other hand my CCW from Florida is now recognized in 25(?) other states, and as for the others, what they don't know won't hurt them or me...

 

[mrapathy2000]

what do you think folks. AWB gets renewed would you be more in favor or LEO's having national carry or against?

if law abiding citizens dont get national ccw soon after LEO's do, I would eventually have to go against it. especially if AWB gets renewed. state ccw permits for average citizen are not a certain thing in the state I live in either. depends on sheriff and some crazy conditions for the permit to be valid. thats if the county sheriff issues at all regardless of law abiding clean record and test scores.

could be okay with national LEO ccw if it aids but would want results of some sort in few months to a year. new state gets ccw ie nebraska,wisconsin,kansas,illinois(when donkeys fly) more states becoming shall issue is always good.

 

[c_yeager]

I guess i am in the minority here.

I am a "civilian" and i OPPOSE national CCW for anyone.

Heres my problem with it. First, i dont think the FEDERAL government should have the ability to tell the STATES who they should allow to carry firearms. Secondly, the second that the federal government gets the authority to ISSUE weapons permits they suddenly get the right to REGULATE weapons permits.

Consider this for a moment. We get "national CCW" and this new federal law supercedes all state CCW laws. But, here is the catch. Our "National CCW" is built on the model of NEW YORK CITY. Still want it?

 

[Aikibiker]

I'm a corrections officer I have not had a chance to read the full text of this law yet, but I am pretty sure it doesn't apply to me. What little of it I have seen of it seems to indicate that you need your agency's approval to carry and mine does not give permission for COs to carry off duty. That's all right we all have CCW permits.

That said I feel the need to add this.

Just because I have a badge does not make me better then anyone else nor does it make me more worthy to defend my family or myself. We all agree that gun control is less about guns and more about control. This law seems tailor made to drive a wedge of resentment between LEOs and the citizenry we are sworn to protect. It also allows certain people privileges because of their station in life. My relatives did not fight in the Revolution just so that a new era of feudalism complete with nobles and knights rise up in this country.

 

[RealGun]

Is there a term that is preferred to describe a citizen of the USA that is not employed in a Law Enforcement role? - Coronach

Relative to carrying a gun, I think it would be "citizens of the second class".

On the subject of national carry licensing, I think of it more as extending "full faith and credit" to CCW licensing, still a State province, not unlike driver's licenses. I see that as the constructive or coordinating rather than intrusive side of the Federal government.

The burden would be on the States to have sufficient commonality in licensing requirements. I don't see how it could extend to open carry, for which there is no license that I know of. I guess Vermont and Alaska would be obliged to obtain an out of state permit. I don't pretend to have a comprehensive answer.

 

[Harve Curry]

This has been going on for along time. But of course someone will say it doesn't apply to nowadays and we all know that history doesn't really repeat itself, it's just an expression.

"In criticizing the monopolization of arms bearing in the hands of one class that was being advocated by his colleague Hippodamos, Aristotle commented:
Hippodamos planned a city with a population of ten thousand, divided into three parts, one of skilled workers, one of agriculturists, and a third to bear arms and secure defense. (But the legal restriction of arms bearing to a given class would mean that) the farmers have no arms, the workers have neither land nor arms; this makes them virtually the servants of those who do possess arms. In these circumstances, the equal sharing of offices and honours becomes an impossibility. (And since) those who possess arms must be superior in power to both the other sections ( the constitution proposed by Hippodamos would breed inequality and discontent.) "

from The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams

 

[walker37]

Morgan:

Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana introduced HR990. This bill covered all CCW holders, not just LEO for national carry. I am not sure of the status. I will try to find out. His email is:

[email protected]

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Morgan]

Walker - thank you. Please let me know what you find out, and I'll do what I can.

I guess everyone else is just going to keep bitching and blaming, instead of working on what has been gained.

 

[Publicola]

First of all the divide between cops & non-cops is not becase the non-cops attempt to seperate themselves form the cops. Quite the reverse; by using "citizen" &/or "civilian" cops differentiate themselves into a different class of persons.

So while being called citizen shouldn't be taken offensively in normal usage, it should be taken offensively if a cop uses it to distinguish a non-cop.

As to cops not supporting a "citizen" nationwide CCW because non-cops were bitching about the cops only bill, that's funny. I'd rank it up there with someone arguing that since we ragged Difi & Boxer for either carrying or buying guns then we lose their support on the AWB. The cops that wob't support non-cop carry laws won't support them no matter what. Pointing out the flaaws with the cops-only carry bill is simply not a legitimate reasoning for their actions.


Finally, we don't need a non-cops cary bill. There was a fellow who championed such a thing (at the request of some others) & got it made into law. The year was 1791 & it can be found as the Second Article of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Now to dismiss the Federalism arguments that are bound to come up (& not w/o merit) I'd refer you to the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that the "priviliges & immunities" of all U.S. citizens cannot be infringed by the states.

But on incrementalism - it's a great strategy for taking ground. Offense in other words. Defense has different requirements & startegies & I'm afraid that, at leats in our situation, incrementalism isn't effective. Imagine defending a hill one small side at a time. That's what incrementalism is to us. We need to firmly defend what we have & then take the offensive to repel the invaders.

But in general, the cops-only bill is a bad idea on numerous levels. Cops will disagree as will those who think cops should be a differentiated class. I doubt it will help in the least any efforts for a nationwide concealed carry with state permit bill. It'd be much preferable to push a literal interpretation of the 2nd & 14th Amendments. Not that it'll happen but that's what our best shot at achieving an end to prior restraint based gun control would be.

 

[gunsmith]

Akibiker

My brother is a cop in NY State and he told me his Dept has no problem with CO's from other States carrying.
CA Corrections Officer are sworn peace officers,so I'm pretty sure they could carry nationwide,same for Reserve Officers.
We need a THR police dept in some small town somewhere,we can all become part time non paid police officers and carry in NY,DC,CA, etc!

 

[Zedicus]

Too damn many of us here want one bill that revokes everything back to the 1911 Sullivan act and yell "Sellout!" to anything less ... we're not going to win that way.

No, More Like Having Everything back to the Seccond Amendment Repealled totaly!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

From the FOP Veep's remarks:

Finally, Congress has the power, under the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, to extend full faith and credit to police officers who have met the criteria set by State authorities to carry concealed firearms and make those credentials applicable and recognized in all States and territories in these United States. It is, therefore, not an intrusion on the power of the States.

And why should the "full faith and credit" clause be invoked only for LEOs? Why should it not be invoked on behalf of ALL persons who are legally authorized by their home state (setting aside 2nd Amendment arguments for the monent) rather than for one subset of the populace?

In answer to Lilysdad, what I have done on behalf of LEO nationwide carry is push for the full faith and credit clause to apply ... for all of us. Okay, I've answered your question ... now what are you doing to help the rest of us CCW holders gain national recognition/reciprocity?

 

[liliysdad]

I was a CCW hoilder before I became a LEO.....still am I suppose... I have no problem with nationwide CCW..IF the states can agree to standardized requirements. This is a states rights issue, IMO.

 

[RealGun]

In order for "full faith and credit" to apply to CCW licensing, the 2nd Amendment would have to be applied by the US Supreme Court to the States via the 14th amendment. If nationwide licensing were implemented without that consideration, it would be a tremendous coup for gun owners. I think as it is there would simply be States that would refuse to participate.

As I understand it, South Carolina's SLED objection to reciprocity is the lack of instant verification facilities from most States. That would be the ability to verify that any license presented had not been revoked and was indeed valid. I guess that objection could be addressed by a nationwide system, although hopefully not a central database, simply a common routing to State records, a private network with no ability to browse records, only to submit a known ID number.

The question is who coordinates efforts among States. There is a Governor's council, and they meet regularly, so perhaps they need expanded functions as a group.