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

[george_co]

I'am 50/50

Call me wishy washy, a fence rider, undecided or whatever, but I swing back and forth on this issue.

Except for LEO's in cities like St. Louis, where they are right on the border with another state, once a cop gets 200 miles away from his/her jurisdiction they are in no more danger than I am statistically, and better trained (at our expense) to avoid/handle the danger if it should come.

Once they leave their jurisdiction, and especially their state, they can really only respond to the most obvious of crimes, for example a man beating/stabbing a women. Basically, the same as I or any other citizen.

I don't like it because it does set aside LEO's as being superior than other citizens. I believe in many jurisdictions it is getting to be a real us vs them mentality by both the LEO's and the citizens. That kind of attidude is very detrimental to society as a whole. The more you separate LEO's from the citizen, the more the citizens will view LEO's as JBT's. Especially, as more and more officers and departments adopt military style clothing and shave their heads.

I also believe the argument that we might be able to use the granting of this right in our future fights for our rights. The proof will be in the pudding if LEAA and other police associations fail to support citizen ccw fights in the future.

However, I really don't like the federal government stepping all over states rights. In our Constitution the states are superior to the Federal Govt. in almost all things and I believe the Feds have yet again stepped all over the States.

There you have it. I don't like the law, I think that they should be allowed to carry the same as the rest of us. I am glad they are carrying but I am concerned about the impact on society and the interaction between the LEO community and citizens. And, I am concerned that an LEO that uses his gun outside of his jurisdiction is going to be hung out to dry thinking that he was protected the same as if he was at home.

You asked for it, you got it.

Be Safe, Whoever you are!
George

 

[FPrice]

National CCW for police (by itself) is not a bad idea.

However, coupled with a lack of a similar law for civilians, it is bad because of most of the reasons set out so far.

 

[SRYnidan]

I don't think the idea of more armed trained folks is bad.

I do think that it is not the Federal governments place to dictate what the states must or must not do.
This is like saying you like the whip only when you have your hand on the stock and not your back under the lash).

I don't see how this can pass the commerce clause test (which congress is no longer even pretending to pay lip service to).

I do feel that this widens the us vs. them gap and I don't believe that the police unions will not recipricate our support.

 

[txgho1911]

This is more reason for

Rank and file patroll officers to speak up when they are missrepresented by the labor unions and administrators.

This could be an oportunity for officers to lead the way on helping NYC or Chicago loosen the grip on the fantasy. Clear the minds in those state capitals where delusions cloud reality.

 

[Coronach]

read ammd 14 and try to wrap this peice of fertilizer around "equal protection"

Which is exactly why I both balk at the general idea of the bill and yet support it anyway. Only so much can go on before even the Supreme Court has to acknowledge the elephant in the room. I think this is also why the antis are so vehemently opposed to this- they recognize it as the wedge that it is.

Mike

 

[txgho1911]

Coronach

Do you think this hr218 was a sneaky trick on the left? Not sure of how they voted as in hands or voice.
It was braught up after the primary issue was tabled for the day.

 

[Kharn]

ghobrien:
It passed under Unanimous Consent, which means no-one in the chamber objected to the bill, so there was no vote tally.

This helps our side by getting it passed without a media circus, but it also helps the antis because the police unions cant use a 'no'-vote against them (the antis probably saw it was going to pass anyway and didnt want to upset the police by forcing a vote).

Kharn

 

[txgho1911]

kewl

Hey folks I see the curtain moving.

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

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.

I've been to a pretty significant number of high-end firearms training classes over the years. Without question, the most ass-backwards & lame firearms handling was done by the LEO members of said classes. Most were very mediocre shots, at best.

The only time I ever saw a man point the muzzle of a rifle into the face of a person 2 feet away was by a SWAT operator in my county. He was showing off to a cute 20-year old blonde student at a community college.

Should your internet posting privileges, derived from the 1st Amendment, be curtailed because you don't "need" them as much as I do? No? Then don't even THINK about limiting my 2nd Amendment rights because you think I don't "need" them as much as a cop.

 

[fix]

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

I'll make sure to advise every former Marine, Ranger, and the one SEAL I know that they are less qualified than rank and file cops to handle weapons. I dont personally know any SF guys, but if you run into one, be sure to let him know too.

 

[Coronach]

I've been to a pretty significant number of high-end firearms training classes over the years. Without question, the most ass-backwards & lame firearms handling was done by the LEO members of said classes. Most were very mediocre shots, at best.

I dunno. I'll counter this by stating flatly that every ND I have ever encountered first-hand was done by non-LEOs, and some of them involved copious amounts of blood.

Simple fact of the matter is that cops in general probably have a better level of training than the population as a whole, but are also pretty far behind dedicated shooters, of both the cop and non-cop varieties. this makes generalizations across the board pretty much useless.

The 'training' argument is a side issue. You will always have poorly trained people, both cop and non-cop. You will always have some people with excellent training, both cop and non-cop. Non-issue.

Mike

 

[Josh]

Has anybody read the whole text of this bill?
Does it define the word 'Retired'?

Could a fella who was a Poopfinger County Sherrif's Deputy eleventyought years ago for 18 months before quitting to go back to playing bingo full-time be considered 'Retired'?

Just thinking that'd be a heck of a way to get nationwide concealed carry for us proles.

Start your own town somewthere in Poopfinger County, swear in anybody who wants to & the next day they retire with nationwide carry rights.

 

[Kharn]

Josh:
Click here and do a bill search on 'HR215'
Here's the definition:

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Looks like your plan would be DOA, 15 years required.

Kharn

 

[tyme]

JohnBT, sorry to pick on you but you seem to strongly support the bill...

Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?

 

[mrapathy2000]

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.

keyword standing wolf says is "citizens" not civilians. its key to me because in the state I live in we already have laws that grant a group of citizens the authority and immunity to possess offensive weapons(class3 weapons)

police are citizens just like the rest of us. in a thread recently discussing 2nd amendment I decided to look up definitions for the various words that make up the 2nd amendment.
Arms came out defined Instruments or weapons of offense or defense original intent I dont know would think so.

some states have laws that say something similar to All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
(Iowa article 1 section 6 laws uniform)

people/citizens should have firearms and ccw permits regardless of race,gender,wealth,occupation and social status.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The part of the bill that says....

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

Is gonna get old in a hurry to some old LEOs.

It sounds to me like they gotta keep going back every 12 months to get qualified. MO's "Permission to excercise a right" law only makes us renew every 3 years. Some states even 5.

Congress knew that this law wouldn't make it through the courts. I am suprised that they didn't just leave this part out.

"at the expense of the individual" I guess that means they even have to pay for their own ammunition.

 

[F4GIB]

Typical LEO response from another board:

Originally posted by Jesterxxx
I CAN AND YOU CAN'T..I CAN AND YOU CAN'T

The quoted post is a perfect example of the reason this is a bad law. It's the same rationale Bill Clinton gave for demanding a BJ from Monica Lewinski -"because I could." Jesterxxx doesn't seem to be sufficiently mature to be trusted on the streets of my town with a gun. But, since he's a "cop" somewhere, he can carry everywhere.

Special deals are never extended to all the people. No LEO exception in history has led to a loosening of restrictions on ordinary folks. None, Never. This one won't either. If you think it will, you've been fooled again.

 

[alan]

Re your desire for a "rational explaination", how about the following: The EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW business, whioch I believe is to be found in The Constitution.

 

[Bainx]

1. They [cops] work for me
2. I read news articles all the time where some police chief [or head of national police chiefs org.] is against me having assault rifles, SKS or whatever
3. It is a war of opposing views. The elites aginst the commoners.
4. Their weapons are always one notch above what I am able to obtain legally. Why is that?

It is for these reasons I conclude, that they must be no more priviledged than me.

 

[CZ-100]

by Tyme

JohnBT, sorry to pick on you but you seem to strongly support the bill...

Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?...

I was thinking the same thing...

 

[jimbo]

I am AGAINST this privelege for ex-LEOs, which does smack of classism.

However, I would MUCH rather see mandatory CCW eligibility for all former US military veterans. After all, they have all the weapons & combat training of LEOs plus they served their nation. I'd be for that in a heartbeat if it wouldn't separate gun owners even more than we currently are, which it would. So all in all, RKBA should be a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for ALL. Period.

 

[Coronach]

JohnBT, sorry to pick on you but you seem to strongly support the bill...

Change "cop" to "white person". Should the bill be passed then?

I'm not john, but allow me:

Yes. It absolutely should. That would be great.

















Why?

Because that is an equal protection clause slam dunk. This is the whole point.

El Tejon, in another thread, stated that the law likes precedents and the law likes analogies. The more this whole CCW thing starts to resemble drivers licenses, the better...full faith and credit? And look...there is already a precedent for national CCW...we have national CCW of LEOs...why not national reciprocity of CCW permit holders? Hmmmm...

Will some of the allies of this bill fail to support CCW for all? Of course some will. But it is still a wedge. Anything that sets the precedent of "guns allowed" and "nationwide" is a threat to the antis. Why do you think they hate it so much? DiFi et al are generally not in the business of taking guns away from cops.

Mike

 

[Telperion]

As I have taken pains to point out, this law has nothing to do with "full faith and credit". More like the Feds saying "shut up and take your medicine" to the States.

We already have the precedents of "guns allowed" and "nationwide": the government is allowed to have guns, nationwide. This law does nothing to recognize the right of the People.

 

[DBK]

Actually F4GIB, I think the lad over at Glock Talk was pulling your leg. The post seemed to have been taken as a joke by all, except you.

As for H.R. 218, I don't see a down side. In fact I beleive it may be the start of Nation-wide CCW recognition.

 

[Harve Curry]

Police CCW is bad because:

1). The police lobbying groups are historically anti-gun and will support Kerry for President.

2). It creates an elite, special group of people. It is unAmerican.

3). They won't have to pay for their CCW same as we do?
Their's won't expire .

4). LEO lobbying groups are for the police, they are not going to follow up on this and lobby for citizens. When it ever does come up for equal rights for citizens the LEO lobbying groups will vote against citizen carry.