answerguy
Member
How does it work when you do this in the following sentence?
Change the word 'pharmacist' to 'white person'
Only a pharmacist can prescribe medicine.
Please explain in rational terms how the national CCW for police is bad?
- Thread starter Das Pferd
- Start date
- Status
How does it work when you do this in the following sentence?
Change the word 'pharmacist' to 'white person'
Only a pharmacist can prescribe medicine.
This is a side issue, but, if I'm reading the law correctly, not quite.
1. Most 'paid' for it by going through academy, often at their own expense (though sometimes not). Most police full training courses run upwards of $2k.
2. It does expire: if they quit prior to 15 lears of work, it does not apply to them. Also, if they fail to shoot their annual qualification, it expires.
But, as I said, this is a side issue. I just like to keep facts straight.
Mike
answerguy, so because pharmacists have exclusive right to dispense medications, I should sit on my hands while cops are given an exclusive right to exercise another constitutional right in the 12 or so states that don't allow ccw? Why don't they have to get licenses and pay processing fees like we do? Pharmacists have an exclusive right. Cops just have their rights extended beyond those of mere citizens. I don't think that alone makes drug regulation legitimate, but if there were really a public policy reason for denying a right to the proles, I'd think they'd make sure the proles couldn't exercise that right at all. That's not the case with firearms in what, 38 states?
The equal protection argument is not so good here (i.e. it is not likely to be accepted by the courts). The 14th and 15th amendments say nothing about discrimination based on occupation. The additional classes like women and the disabled, among others, are only in the Civil Rights Act, and can't be used as clear evidence of an equal protection violation. I very much doubt that any court would look at a law applying to police officers and declare it an equal protection violation. Federal agents have been able to ccw for quite a while, and nobody's yet succeeded in having that declared an equal protection violation. Why will this be any different? If minority classes were discriminated against for employment as LEOs, that would be an equal protection problem, and the ccw issue might be a transitive/proxy equal-protection violation.
The equal protection argument is not so good here (i.e. it is not likely to be accepted by the courts). The 14th and 15th amendments say nothing about discrimination based on occupation. The additional classes like women and the disabled, among others, are only in the Civil Rights Act, and can't be used as clear evidence of an equal protection violation. I very much doubt that any court would look at a law applying to police officers and declare it an equal protection violation. Federal agents have been able to ccw for quite a while, and nobody's yet succeeded in having that declared an equal protection violation. Why will this be any different? If minority classes were discriminated against for employment as LEOs, that would be an equal protection problem, and the ccw issue might be a transitive/proxy equal-protection violation.
artherd
member
mountainclmbr
Member
What am I missing???
Equal protection under the law means:
1. The state has total power.
2. Everyone has the same rights unless they break a law that harms some one else.
3. Citizens have all rights and law enforcement should summon help from a citizen to have access to a firearm.
I would vote number 2, but number 3 would be my second choice.
The LEO CCW places those who serve above those who pay (#1). I am a free, non-crimminal working man. I see corruption in local government and LEO. Placing LEO in this position scares the hell out of me. How do you spell "POLICE STATE"? Why do liberal politicians want to disarm law-abiding citizens? I look at police states like Germany, The Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam... and I know exactly why.
To LEO in Boulder, CO, when you see the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers, do you think why should we not free Boulder first?
Equal protection under the law means:
1. The state has total power.
2. Everyone has the same rights unless they break a law that harms some one else.
3. Citizens have all rights and law enforcement should summon help from a citizen to have access to a firearm.
I would vote number 2, but number 3 would be my second choice.
The LEO CCW places those who serve above those who pay (#1). I am a free, non-crimminal working man. I see corruption in local government and LEO. Placing LEO in this position scares the hell out of me. How do you spell "POLICE STATE"? Why do liberal politicians want to disarm law-abiding citizens? I look at police states like Germany, The Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam... and I know exactly why.
To LEO in Boulder, CO, when you see the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers, do you think why should we not free Boulder first?
El Rojo
Member
I didn't feel like reading through this whole thing because I had a epiphany. Everyone listen carefully to what I am about to say.
What choice did law enforcement have in this whole issue? They knew that if citizens with CCWs had been given the right to carry nation wide, those CCW supporters would have got what they wanted and said to hell with law-enforcement. Basically the police knew that CCW holders would have abandoned them once CCW holders got theirs. According to this link, Rep. Bill McCollum attempted to attach a national CCW rider to this bill. Did law enforcment oppose this? Of course not. The Brady Camp did and the whole thing was going to go down in flames thanks to their rhetoric. So what did law enforcement do? Exactly what the selfish CCW holders would have done, they looked out for their own interests. The cops knew if the CCW people could drop the law enforcment aspects of the bill, they would selfishly get national reciprocity for themselves and they leave law enforcement high and dry.
So for those of you who oppose this based solely on your belief that now law enforcement no longer has a need to stand by us, what did you expect? I mean what makes rank and file cops any different than us? They knew if we had beaten them to the national reciprocity, we would have abandonded them because we are a bunch of selfish "I've got mine" types. I guess they could have withdrawn the bill when our amendment got dropped, but that isn't what selfish "elite citizens" do. The same reason CCW holders throughout the country don't care if you live in a non CCW area. They have theirs. I mean look at all of our THR members who could care less about California. The most sympathy I hear out of anyone is a simple "move". So hell, if you don't have a CCW, then move. If you are not in an elite special class job, then "move" jobs. I mean after all, life is all about me and to hell with everyone else if they are not as priviledged as me.
What choice did law enforcement have in this whole issue? They knew that if citizens with CCWs had been given the right to carry nation wide, those CCW supporters would have got what they wanted and said to hell with law-enforcement. Basically the police knew that CCW holders would have abandoned them once CCW holders got theirs. According to this link, Rep. Bill McCollum attempted to attach a national CCW rider to this bill. Did law enforcment oppose this? Of course not. The Brady Camp did and the whole thing was going to go down in flames thanks to their rhetoric. So what did law enforcement do? Exactly what the selfish CCW holders would have done, they looked out for their own interests. The cops knew if the CCW people could drop the law enforcment aspects of the bill, they would selfishly get national reciprocity for themselves and they leave law enforcement high and dry.
So for those of you who oppose this based solely on your belief that now law enforcement no longer has a need to stand by us, what did you expect? I mean what makes rank and file cops any different than us? They knew if we had beaten them to the national reciprocity, we would have abandonded them because we are a bunch of selfish "I've got mine" types. I guess they could have withdrawn the bill when our amendment got dropped, but that isn't what selfish "elite citizens" do. The same reason CCW holders throughout the country don't care if you live in a non CCW area. They have theirs. I mean look at all of our THR members who could care less about California. The most sympathy I hear out of anyone is a simple "move". So hell, if you don't have a CCW, then move. If you are not in an elite special class job, then "move" jobs. I mean after all, life is all about me and to hell with everyone else if they are not as priviledged as me.
El Roho posted:
How exactly did LE know this? Because the earth is flat?
For a small fee any LEO in a CCW state can get a carry permit and then have exactly the same reciprocity rights as "them" civilians. The reverse is not true.
In Minnesota the law treats retired LEO exactly the same as everyone else except they can skip the required training if they apply within one year of retirement. How selfish of the civilians pushing Right to Carry to have included those retired LEO's.
P. S. There is no liability limitation or restriction in H.R. 218. If you draw or shoot, you are on your own. Furthermore, H.R. 218 does not make you a "police officer" in that other state. You are just an armed civilian. Do you know the use of force rules that apply to non-police officers in your vacation state?
How exactly did LE know this? Because the earth is flat?
For a small fee any LEO in a CCW state can get a carry permit and then have exactly the same reciprocity rights as "them" civilians. The reverse is not true.
In Minnesota the law treats retired LEO exactly the same as everyone else except they can skip the required training if they apply within one year of retirement. How selfish of the civilians pushing Right to Carry to have included those retired LEO's.
P. S. There is no liability limitation or restriction in H.R. 218. If you draw or shoot, you are on your own. Furthermore, H.R. 218 does not make you a "police officer" in that other state. You are just an armed civilian. Do you know the use of force rules that apply to non-police officers in your vacation state?
El Rojo, that doesn't sound like much of an argument. It sounds like an excuse which does nothing to address the fact that police should not have an exclusive right to ccw in all 50 states.
The difference between the current situation and the hypothetical you outlined is that because police are in the public sector, being greedy and getting whatever legislation they want even if it's unfair is no longer their right.
The difference between the current situation and the hypothetical you outlined is that because police are in the public sector, being greedy and getting whatever legislation they want even if it's unfair is no longer their right.
Wildalaska
member
Best thing that could happen for gun onwers is for it to pass, get challenged and end up at SCOTUS..
O yeah baby talk about win/win/win
WildcantyouseeitAlaska
O yeah baby talk about win/win/win
WildcantyouseeitAlaska
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, in the spirit of incrementalism, if anyone's gun rights are expanded, it is good for all of us. On the other hand, as someone who favors as limited a federal government as possible, I am generally opposed to federal government "mission creep" whereby the reach and scope of the federal government expands day by day. Frankly, I cannot say that federal preemption of the gun laws of the several states (in this context) is not overreaching by the feds. I don't think that there is a viable connection to interstate commerce, for example, to justify it (contrast the federal Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) which arguably has a connection to interstate commerce, namely, interstate travel by gunowners). Again, I am generally in favor of expansion of gun rights for any and all; however this particular vehicle of federal preemption of state law offends my notions of limited federal government. As a side note, I have concerns whether this law would survive a constitutional challenge in the courts.
I see this law as a step in the right direction.
For one, it puts more good guys with guns on the street. I dont see this as a bad thing.
Second, the more folks we have on the street with guns, the more voice we have in legislative matters. Maybe some of these folks that generally waffle on gun issues will wake up and take note.
Thirdly, this law basically "cleans up" some of the laws that make it illegal for a cop to tote in another state. I have issued several permits to cops that actually have more rights as a CCW carrying citizen than an off duty cop. Many states stipulate that an out of state cop must be on duty to legally carry a gun. If he is off duty he has no right.
Last but not least, it could be a step in national reciprocity. Its a fact that the anti gun states are usaully the places where you need your gun the most. The great city of New York could care less that you visited their city and got mugged by some thug thats spent his life in and out of jail. They have demonstrated their ability on numerous occasions their willingness to spend more time, money and resources prosecuting someone that tired to defend themselves with a gun than than the perp that initiated the crime.
I always thought this to be a travesty of justice. Perhaps this bill might be the first step to giving any red blooded American the ability to defend himself from not only the thugs that would rape, plunder and pillage them or their families, but also the morally corrupt thugs that would make it illegal for one to so.
For one, it puts more good guys with guns on the street. I dont see this as a bad thing.
Second, the more folks we have on the street with guns, the more voice we have in legislative matters. Maybe some of these folks that generally waffle on gun issues will wake up and take note.
Thirdly, this law basically "cleans up" some of the laws that make it illegal for a cop to tote in another state. I have issued several permits to cops that actually have more rights as a CCW carrying citizen than an off duty cop. Many states stipulate that an out of state cop must be on duty to legally carry a gun. If he is off duty he has no right.
Last but not least, it could be a step in national reciprocity. Its a fact that the anti gun states are usaully the places where you need your gun the most. The great city of New York could care less that you visited their city and got mugged by some thug thats spent his life in and out of jail. They have demonstrated their ability on numerous occasions their willingness to spend more time, money and resources prosecuting someone that tired to defend themselves with a gun than than the perp that initiated the crime.
I always thought this to be a travesty of justice. Perhaps this bill might be the first step to giving any red blooded American the ability to defend himself from not only the thugs that would rape, plunder and pillage them or their families, but also the morally corrupt thugs that would make it illegal for one to so.
alan
Member
Watchman wrote, among other things:
I see this law as a step in the right direction.
I respectfully suggest that you take a second look, perhaps a third, if that proves necessary.
For instance, what has been the stated attitude of some of the various national polkice organizations and their leaders?
As I suggested, look again.
I see this law as a step in the right direction.
I respectfully suggest that you take a second look, perhaps a third, if that proves necessary.
For instance, what has been the stated attitude of some of the various national polkice organizations and their leaders?
As I suggested, look again.
For instance, what has been the stated attitude of some of the various national polkice organizations and their leaders?
It dosent matter what "they" think about this law.
I'll be the first to agree that many of the leaders consider themselves to be superior to not only civilians, but also to the rank and file cops. I also beleive them to be socialist sumbichs that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Unfortunatly, like many other unions in this country, what the leaders think does not usually reflect the ideas or thoughts of the membership.
Its the leadersip that gets the exposure. We often hear about what this cheif thinks or what this Sherrif says, when in reality the guys on the street think opposite. Im reminded of the support for the Brady Bill when Clinton stacked the White House steps with many leaders from various police organizations. He made it look like ALL of law enforcement supported it, when in fact very few did.It was Clinton Politics as usual.
It dosent matter what "they" think about this law.
I'll be the first to agree that many of the leaders consider themselves to be superior to not only civilians, but also to the rank and file cops. I also beleive them to be socialist sumbichs that are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Unfortunatly, like many other unions in this country, what the leaders think does not usually reflect the ideas or thoughts of the membership.
Its the leadersip that gets the exposure. We often hear about what this cheif thinks or what this Sherrif says, when in reality the guys on the street think opposite. Im reminded of the support for the Brady Bill when Clinton stacked the White House steps with many leaders from various police organizations. He made it look like ALL of law enforcement supported it, when in fact very few did.It was Clinton Politics as usual.
El Rojo
Member
I knew I should have made it know that was more a more satirical look at this. Everyone says the cops are going to drop us like a bad habit, so what is to say CCW holders wouldn't drop cops? If you area is not friendly to CCW or CHL, a law enforcement officer won't get one either. How many police officers have a CCW in Los Angeles County or City? Of course they can carry off-duty anyway, but we are talking about CCW only getting national reciprocity and that would leave those cops out of luck and me a few hours north in luck. Again, I was mainly poking fun at the whole "Oh God no!!! Now the super elite have no reason to fight for us anymore because they only think in their own selfish interests and don't care about anyone else." I contend that most cops and most shooters are one in the same and that if cops are selfish, then CCW holders and shooters in general are probably selfish too, so how can you blame the cops for getting theirs since CCW holders would have done the same thing. Now if you believe that cops are decent and good people who are generally conservative and you think they will still argue for us to be armed, this entire argument means nothing to you.
Probably the same exact use of force rules that everyone should follow. Only display or use your firearm if you have a real and reasonable fear for your life and you can prove it to a jury of 12. Not that hard.
I know all LEO's hate defense counsel, but any one of them will tell you that "Probably the same" is a pi@@ poor defense strategy.
Especially in a state like Minnesota where the police "rules" on use of force (including deadly force) are more liberal than the armed civilian "rules." Acting like a cop while not a "real" state-licensed police officer ought to get you a visit to the Barrs Hotel.
Especially in a state like Minnesota where the police "rules" on use of force (including deadly force) are more liberal than the armed civilian "rules." Acting like a cop while not a "real" state-licensed police officer ought to get you a visit to the Barrs Hotel.
El Rojo
Member
I guess I was under the impression that law enforcement was only permitted to carry a concealed weapon and that they received no protections by the department while traveling out of state. I didn't know that it gave them police powers and that they were going to be making arrests and drawing their weapons on jay walkers while at Disney World. F4GIB, find something credible to complain about. Cops off duty don't want to do cop stuff, they want to relax. I think it is pretty safe to say they are not going to be pulling their gun on a out of state trip unless it is absolutely necessay.
And really, what does it matter if the state laws are all different? Should that make a difference on whether they get to carry or not? That is a good point, since carry and "use of force rules"
are different all over the country, we can't expect trained law enforcement to know them all and be responsible. So we sure as hell can't expect the average CCW/CHL holder to be capable of the same. Lets just scrap the whole idea. You are right people just aren't smart enough to be able to take responsibility to do this. 
And really, what does it matter if the state laws are all different? Should that make a difference on whether they get to carry or not? That is a good point, since carry and "use of force rules"
are different all over the country, we can't expect trained law enforcement to know them all and be responsible. So we sure as hell can't expect the average CCW/CHL holder to be capable of the same. Lets just scrap the whole idea. You are right people just aren't smart enough to be able to take responsibility to do this. alan
Member
All:
Allow me to clarify a couple of points
1. The average STREET COP, I've known several, might not be
at all opposed to CIVILIAN CARRY OF ARMS, but it isn't they who are asked, nor is it they who media quotes, nor is it THE STREET COP, that is part of all those "photo ops" so beloved of political types, rather it is the POLICE BUREAUCRATS and or UNION OFFICALS, another type of bureaucrat, who make the papers, and are heard in the halls of legislative The Congress.
2. As to the civilian not being knowlegable of the laws concerning the use of deadly force, in an area where he/she/they might be vacationing, since when are police all that knowlegable of the law. Rumor has it that they are, but one hears all sorts of rumors in the bazaar.
Allow me to clarify a couple of points
1. The average STREET COP, I've known several, might not be
at all opposed to CIVILIAN CARRY OF ARMS, but it isn't they who are asked, nor is it they who media quotes, nor is it THE STREET COP, that is part of all those "photo ops" so beloved of political types, rather it is the POLICE BUREAUCRATS and or UNION OFFICALS, another type of bureaucrat, who make the papers, and are heard in the halls of legislative The Congress.
2. As to the civilian not being knowlegable of the laws concerning the use of deadly force, in an area where he/she/they might be vacationing, since when are police all that knowlegable of the law. Rumor has it that they are, but one hears all sorts of rumors in the bazaar.
gryphon
Member
How's that again?
It's funny. We are all citizens, but then people seem to think that LEO are different.
If the "civilians" get the law passed in their selfish way, then EVERYONE can take advantage.
If the LEO gets the bill passed in their own selfish way, then ONLY LEO benefit.
So, you tell me how this argument holds water?
El Rojo
Member
No, if "If the "civilians" get the law passed in their selfish way, then EVERYONE can take advantage" is not the case. If nation wide CCW takes place, those people in states and counties that have friendly CCW get to take advantage. Those states without CCW or counties that issue no CCW are not going to give them to law enforcement just so they can carry out of state. This is a mute point as all of my theory on this is one big act of sarcasm to point out how rediculous it is to be against this on the point that LEOs are now going to forget about us because they got theirs. My argument holds no water just like the arguement that LEOs will now forget us has not been presented with any kind of evidence other than the ramblings of petty, anti-LEO types.
I like the arguments that this isn't a good bill because it takes away states rights. Good points with relevancy and backing. The rest just seems to be about how some people are pissy because they don't get along with cops.
I like the arguments that this isn't a good bill because it takes away states rights. Good points with relevancy and backing. The rest just seems to be about how some people are pissy because they don't get along with cops.
And the difference is that in this case, the inequality between police and citizens is imposed by the legislation. In your "selfish" citizen national-ccw hypothetical, the inequality already exists; the legislation would do nothing to exacerbate it.
Roadkill Coyote
Member
IANAL, but here's a thought about the differances in state statutes.
Although state laws may vary widely, an officer carrying under H.R. 218 is only dealing with one very specific aspect of the law, the circumstances under which deadly force may be used, after all, it only allows an officer to carry a means of applying one specific type of force. With regards to using deadly force, there is a useful standard which has been applied nationally, and which is widely and routinely covered in law enforcement training. It is found in Tennessee v. Garner. That, coupled with the certain knowledge that his actions will be judged in a unfamiliar court, mean that drawing a weapon carried in another state under H.R. 218 should, of course, be an action of the very last resort.
Although state laws may vary widely, an officer carrying under H.R. 218 is only dealing with one very specific aspect of the law, the circumstances under which deadly force may be used, after all, it only allows an officer to carry a means of applying one specific type of force. With regards to using deadly force, there is a useful standard which has been applied nationally, and which is widely and routinely covered in law enforcement training. It is found in Tennessee v. Garner. That, coupled with the certain knowledge that his actions will be judged in a unfamiliar court, mean that drawing a weapon carried in another state under H.R. 218 should, of course, be an action of the very last resort.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
