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

Please explain in rational terms how the national CCW for police is bad?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Das Pferd, Jul 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Das Pferd

    Das Pferd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    350
    This is how I see it. If there is a national law that states police have the right to CCW even when off duty in other states to protect themselves, couldnt someone argue down the road that a person showing the same training and clean background should also be allowed to carry nationwide? And other arguments along these lines.
     
  2. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    The law is vile because it grants special privileges to a certain class of citizens.

    How would you feel if physicists were exempt from speed limits? How would you feel if teachers received special tax breaks? How would you like a special law that grants artists extra votes in elections?

    Rights don't ever trickle down from élite groups to the commoners. Someone could argue this; someone could argue that; someone could argue fifty-seventeen and a half ways from Sunday—but no court in the nation is going to rule in favor of the commoners when it comes to our Second Amendment civil rights.
     
  3. deej

    deej Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    (Occupied) California Republic
    Police organizations, as opposed to individual police officers, generally oppose civilian (sic) firearm ownership.

    Any incentive for rank and file LEOs to campaign for civilian (sic) CCW has just been eliminated.

    Assault weapons, after all, are legal for LEOs to possess. Do you see any LEOs making demands for civilian (sic) AW ownership?
     
  4. VaniB.

    VaniB. member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    TX
    I don't have a jealous streak running through my bones, so it's not a real issue for me. No skin off my nose either way.

    It's a good indicator though and encouraging how concealed carry in the majority of states has changed attitudes throughout the country. After all, this bill was dead for years!
     
  5. Das Pferd

    Das Pferd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    350
    They do. There are many laws that group citizens into classes and then give them special rights. Not saying its right.

    Your right I didn't think about that.
     
  6. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,809
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    The only arguments I've seen against this bill boil down to, "If I can't do it, then they shouldn't be able to, either." I'm really disappointed in some of the posts I've seen when this bill has been discussed.

    IMHO, this bill doesn't create a "super" class, it recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers by the nature of their jobs are both better trained in the use of weapons than the average citizen, and, because of threats to themselves and their families from those they arrest, have a greater actual need to be armed. True, many posters on this forum are better trained than the average officer, but the level of threat against them just isn't anywhere near as great as it is against active and retired law enforcement officers.

    I view this as an incremental step in national CCW reciprocity, and, hopefully, the eventual elimination of a licensing requirement for CCW.
     
  7. deej

    deej Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    (Occupied) California Republic
    So you're saying that passing a new CCW law will eventually result in the elimination of all CCW laws?

    Also, can you please give us some examples of when granting peace officers privileges denied to ordinary citizens has resulted in the eventual expansion of those privileges to others?
     
  8. Mulliga

    Mulliga Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,251
    Location:
    Gainesville, Florida
    POINT #1 - Police are better trained in the use of weapons than "civilians."

    Think about it. While many police officers are shooters, others merely shoot just because they have to. In most cases, police work involves relatively little shooting. Compare this to an average THR member, who puts down a few hundred rounds downrange a month at least. Why should the law treat the police better?

    POINT #2 - Cops have a greater "need" to be armed (as if "need" had anything to do with owning or carrying firearms)

    Cops, by and large, don't carry large amounts of money. They don't guard celebrities or politicians. They don't need to stop crimes when they are off-duty (and even when on-duty, they have no responsibility for your personal safety).

    POINT #3 - Cops are threatened by crooks off-duty.

    Again, IMO this is a logical fallacy. I'd wager that the average cop is a decent-sized man or woman in pretty good shape, with some experience at unarmed fighting. Compare this to a 19-year old female college student, or an 87 year old grandmother, or a single father with two young children - who needs more protection?

    =============

    National CCW for retired and off-duty LEOs is okay, but it does create disparity.
     
  9. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    INCORRECT.

    LEOs in Ohio (and, I daresay, most everywhere) have a duty to act on and off duty when confronted with various types of crimes. The whole "no responsibility for your safety" argument stems from the fact if you are harmed by crime you cannot sue the department for failing to protect you in a general sense. If you have an actual, live cop standing there watching you get killed and he does nothing, well, thats a different matter entirely.

    Mike
     
  10. citizen

    citizen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    429
    IMHO, what is needed first is a national reciprocity amongst states....(like a driver's license); THEN if individual states exempt their leo's from ccw requirements,or not; they can still opt to obtain one privately. BUT - first things first.....just mho.
     
  11. TheFederalistWeasel

    TheFederalistWeasel member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    796
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Can a Police Officer offer up an opinion w/o being hanged at dawn simple because I carry a badge and a gun?

    LEO attitudes towards vary from point to point in the US of A, come down south, here in GA and most cops (those of us who work for a living) not your rank and file upper desk jockeys have no desire to see a gun ban or confiscation or the abolishment of CCW etc…

    Why?

    Well I have plenty of family members who are not cops and therefore are not afforded the privileges that I am regarding off-duty carry, but crime can hit them just as fast as it can hit me, what’s to say a criminal how wants at me, but knows I carry 24/7 goes after my loved one’s?

    Go up to NYC or out to LA and I’m sure it’s completely different, because of the culture.

    As far as LEO’s being able to possess Assault Weapons, I’d wish you’d tell that to my Chief! I’ve got a Mossy 500 12ga in the trunk and 10 rounds of buckshot, no belt fed fire breather there!

    Hell I cannot even buy post ban hi-cap mags for any of my guns let alone AW’s!

    Everything I’ve bought gun related since becoming a cop has been pre-ban and semi-auto and I had to go thru the same background check as you.
     
  12. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    The only LEOs in the PDRK that own AWs owned them before Roberti-Roos and SB-23 and registered them before the deadlines. Any ownership of AWs by LEOs in the PDRK now is done on department letterhead and the LEO has to surrender the weapon to his department when he retires.

    Pilgrim
     
  13. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    We've heard a lot of claims against this bill (soon to be law, it seems) on the grounds of equal protection. I want to criticize it from a different viewpoint: it is (in my opinion) an abuse of the interstate commerce clause. Some people in a previous thread were under the impression that this bill operates under Article IV, section I ("full faith and credit") of the U.S. Constitution. This is not the case; here is the language of the bill (emphasis is mine):

    So you see, this bill is not about having states recognize officers' carry rights. In actuality, it is the Federal government forcibly overriding and superceding state carry laws. Maybe I am just dense, and don't like the current Supreme Court's canon on the ICC, but I don't really see how the mere carriage of a gun substantially effects interstate and foreign commerce. Although the police help maintain civil order so commerce can proceed in a well-regulated manner, a police officer travelling to a different state is just a private citizen, and may only act in private self-defense, with few exceptions. So while I am glad this is giving some police officers what they want, I hope they realize it is only helping to expand the reach of the Federal government's powers.
     
  14. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
    <ramble>

    Ahh, constitutionality. Ron Paul argued against the federal Immunity for Gun Dealers act because his copy of the constitution didn't have the "federal government may tell the states what court cases are and are not acceptable" clause that the current .Gov uses. On the basis of the flagrant misreading of the ICC about 3/4 of laws passed these days are unconstitutional. Was it Rothbard who said, (i'm butchering the quote but...) "The founding fathers saw the interstate commerce clause as basically creating an 'American Free Trade Zone' in which states couldn't erect trade barriers against the products of other states."


    atek3


    </ramble>
     
  15. deej

    deej Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    (Occupied) California Republic
    Any ownership of AWs by non-LEOs in the "PDRK" now is...oh yeah, NOT POSSIBLE. Silly me.

    Giving cops special rights is a great advance for the rest of us!
     
  16. F4GIB

    F4GIB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Midwest
    Previously posted: "If you have an actual, live cop standing there watching you get killed and he does nothing, well, thats a different matter entirely."

    Nope.

    Neither the department nor the nearby officer can be sued by the citizen who is not protected nor served.

    The officer might be subject to employer discipline if there is a departmental rule that requires action but that's the end of it.
     
  17. tyme

    tyme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Novalis
    As long as police don't have national ccw rights, the police lobby has something to gain by supporting real federal ccw for all citizens. Once police get national ccw, that incentive goes away.

    I cannot support anything that exacerbates "us vs them." It seems fairly clear to me that national ccw for police does exactly that. If LEOs want nat'l ccw, they should fight for that right for all citizens, and I'll be happy to fight for their right to carry -- as citizens.

    Supporting laws that unfairly discriminate by class is dangerous, no matter what the intentions may be. I simply won't do it. Sorry.
     
  18. firearms_instructor

    firearms_instructor Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    378
    Location:
    Texas
    We're supposed to enjoy equal peotection under the law. Oops, there have been a thousand and one infringements.

    I for one do not favor giving the police any more special favor/privilege/treatment than they already have, but especially not this. As long as "officer safety" trumps MY right to keep and bear arms, screw 'em.
     
  19. Josey

    Josey member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,476
    Location:
    Catfish Co, KY
    Problem. A hick deputy sheriff (barney Fife) is in NYC. He sees a fight/scuffle and "gets involved". He spots a firearm on one participant, draws and fires his weapon dry. The BG is wearing a wristband, orange for example. This BG is a UC LEO and was arresting a dangerous felon when the "good samaritan" deputy comes along and misinterprets the circumstances. OOPS! Another example might be a LAPD officer on vacation at Lake Tahoe. He sees a crime in progress and jumps in armed. He shoots a BG. The local prosecutor doesn't like LAPD officers shooting the local citizens and hauls the LAPD officer before a grand jury hoping for at least manslaughter. The need for better and more training is what I see. Agencies have differing standards of executing use of deadly force. POST certification doesn't mean that all areas of policy are interchangable by covenant.
     
  20. Boats

    Boats member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,705
    Location:
    Oregon
    Cops are civilians. That ends the inquiry from my perspective. There is nothing general in nature about police officers that merits special rights as a class as opposed to the rest of the citizenry.

    Almost all of the worst cases told of spray and pray, dog murder, and other such "highly trained" antics come from cop shops. It ain't exactly Super Troopers out there, but sometimes the individual buffoonery comes close.
     
  21. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    They put their lives on the line everyday and make a few enemies by locking up bad guys.

    I think they need to carry a gun everywhere they go.

    (I also think I need to carry a gun everywhere I go, so let's keep working to change those laws too.)

    John
     
  22. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    I certainly don't buy the better trained argument. Even you don't -- as soon as you acknowledge that even ONE "civilian" is better trained than ONE police officer, that argument becomes invalid.

    As to the argument that police officers are "on call" 24/7 even when off-duty ... that's simply not the case. Correct me if you know of exceptions, but to the best of my knowledge an LEO is an LEO only within the state or jurisdiction in which he is sworn. Once he/she crosses the state line, he/she is no more an LEO than my grandmother. (Federal LEOs don't count. You already have national carry.)

    As to the argument that an LEO is "likely" to encounter a revenge seeking thug while on vacation ... gimme a break. The odds are much greater that the average couple vacationing at Disney World will be attacked in the parking lot of their motel.

    To me it all boils down to the point already mentioned: incentive. It should be interstate recognition of ALL CCW, or none. I don't have a problem working with LEOs to get it for all of us. I DO have a problem with their saying "Help us get it today and we'll support you getting it tomorrow ... errr, next week... errrr, next year .... ah, ummm." Once they get it, thery have no incentive to to help us, and we need it just as much as they do. And since they aren't LEOs outside of their own states, we have exactly as much justification for wanting our permits to be recognized as they do. Outside of their home states, LEOs are nothing but citizens.
     
  23. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    I hope we get away from

    Us vs Them
    It just will not work for us.

    From another thread and LEAA looks like this is another one on the books.
    We all know George will sign.
    I would sugjest that since this is done now everyone accept this and act possitively and proactively support it.

    As been pointed out in many threads here and elsewhere there are parts of hr218 that may easily be struck down. That should not stop any of us from the ability to keep working for the same or similar goals.
    If you think this is not fair. I tell a pair of 7 year old kids at least once a week that life is not fair.
    In the end we only want this enumerated recognized right to be just that. A right to everyone in this country. I don't want the fed keeping up with ownership and carry status of myself and everyone else. I wish we did not have the states keeping tabs on this right as well. We are not there yet.

    To get there we may end up personaly promoting thos candidates we support. Some of us may end up needing to get into office. We may have some form of national registry to carry nationwide.
    Or would you rather we had a federally mandated recognition of home or out of state permits. This could of course force some states to legislate laws and policy to regulate the state. Maybe protection for individuals so King Daley cannot pack his dungeons.
     
  24. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "The odds are much greater that the average couple vacationing at Disney World will be attacked in the parking lot of their motel." So they need to carry a gun, too. Right? Okay, aren't we working on it? Vote. Join organizations. Lobby. Politic.

    The odds of drawing a royal flush are much greater...but I've had one. What's your point? If an off-duty officer is accosted you want them to be unarmed? That's what it sounds like.

    Sometimes when I read posts here I imagine I hear these same little voices in my head going "Whaaaa, whaaaa, whaaaa" and the sound of little feet stamping in indignation and anger. "If they can, why can't I?" "I don't like the rules so I'm taking my ball and going home."

    And the favorite..."Life's not FAIR. Whaaaaa."

    John
     
  25. woerm

    woerm Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Glitter Gulch, LSR
    reason 1 & 2

    Standing W and Mulliga

    The law is vile because it grants special privileges to a certain class of citizens.


    read ammd 14 and try to wrap this peice of fertilizer around "equal protection"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page