Poll on a gun law...

[Autolycus]

This thread is about the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, LEOSA for short. It is also called HR 218 in some circles.

It grants Law Enforcement and Retired Law Enforcement the ability to carry a firearm anywhere in the country. No permit is required. A retired officer can carry in NYC, Chicago, Maryland, Wisconsin, Los Angeles, or other places where it is impossible for a civilian or average citizen to get a permit or in some cases where concealed carry is not allowed for non LEOs.

I just want to know if you think that we should repeal it or if we should support it.

Please explain your reasoning for repealing this law or for leaving it as it is.

 

[Autolycus]

I think we should repeal the law as it helps to perpetuate the idea that law enforcement is somehow more capable with a firearm then non law enforcement.

I also think that the law is unconstitutional in that it grants rights to one group while not protecting the rights of others.

So I would vote that we should repeal the law.

 

[Damien45]

Keep it. It is a step in the right direction. Granted it is focused on certain individuals, who by choice, are (or was) in the profession of protecting the public.

Do you want to remove the gun from Jonh/Jane Q. Law while he/she is visiting out of state family? If so, why?

 

[Soybomb]

It grants Law Enforcement and Retired Law Enforcement the ability to carry a firearm anywhere in the country. No permit is required.

I believe this is quite misleading as officers do have to continue to qualify and I believe supply up to date ID from their old employer. Someone more knowledgeable in it like isp2605 will probably fill in the details, but you make it sound like a retired cop just decides to carry and gets to put a gun in his pants.

Past that I think its unfair and should stay. While i'm not a fan of special treatment under the law based on things like that, I don't think taking away someones right to carry helps me carry at all. If the police can't be trusted to carry, I sure can't.

 

[Zundfolge]

I also think that the law is unconstitutional in that it grants rights to one group while not protecting the rights of others.

Of course using that point to push for CCW for ALL is another option.



I understand the desire to not give cops yet another reason to think they're better then the rest of us proles, but we didn't get into the position we are in now overnight (Vis-à-vis all the stupid gun control laws we have to put up with).

We're not going to get all the way back to the turn of the last century in one fell swoop either so I think we should see this law as a stair step toward what we do want.


Today retired cops, tomorrow everyone else.

 

[MS .45]

I agree with the sentiment that it is a step in the right direction

 

[Geno]

I say No for the Following Two Reasons

First: It's a lifelong permit. A retired LEO could commit a crime after retiring. At minimum, there should be an annual review to assure such has not happened.

Second: If you don't want complaints about double-standards, get rid of the double-standards. For example, this law circumvents Michigan's laws that prohibit DUI convicted drivers from having a MCPL. If you have a DUI, you will never carry CCW. Double-standard.

The sum of these two factors, and many others contribute to a perpetuation of the "us V them" sentiment.

 

[Anotherguy]

I don't think just because you were in law enforcement makes you any more qualified than some citizens to carry.

I don't like double standards.

I don't like the idea of people like the CPD officer who beat the woman in the bar getting special treatment. Granted, if he's convicted he'll never legally be able to own a gun again but what if that incident never came to light? He'd still be out there. Cops are no more trustworthy than anyone else.

Maybe if they had to kick, scratch and fight their state politicians in order to simply keep their guns they'd get involved in the fight instead of knowing they have a free pass and sitting on their hands. We could use more law enforcement officers standing up for the 2nd.

 

[Autolycus]

Well the person has to be a LEO for at least 15 years before they are able to carry upon retirement.

And it does allow some officers to slip by certain things like Doc2005 posted.

When you suggest pushing for a step in the right direction please explain. I have seen a bill which grants national reciprocity yet many are opposed to it. This bill gives a state officer the right to carry nationally. So isnt that kind of the same thing?

I am sorry but if you support this law then you should support a law allowing judges to CCW. Or Politicians to CCW. Even while you cant. Like in Chicago where city alderman can carry a weapon to protect themselves while you must be defenseless.

I am sorry either the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies equally to everyone or it does not.

 

[ShelleyB.]

"If the police can't be trusted to carry, I sure can't."

Soybomb, you do realize this includes Chicago cops? Please rethink that!

I am for repealing. I don't see it as a step in any direction that will ultimately benefit the "little people."

Retired LEO, judges, and politicians shouldn't have special privileges to protect them while in essence denying the same to anyone else.

 

[Damien45]

I am sorry but if you support this law then you should support a law allowing judges to CCW. Or Politicians to CCW. Even while you cant. Like in Chicago where city alderman can carry a weapon to protect themselves while you must be defenseless.

It is not the same thing. Judges and Politicians serve the public (in theory). LEO PROTECT and serve, by choice. They are trained, regularly. Not just in how to use, but why and when. There is so much more to shooting then the actual mechanics. There is a mindset which is as necessary as good aim.

Yes there are bad apples within the LEO community. Name me one community that is without it's own bad seeds?! It doesn't exist. Not within the human nature to have 100% moral and responsible individuals 100% of the time. That is exactly why we are in the legal situation of anti-gun laws now. The entire premise you are basing this poll off of is an exact mirror of the premise people used to get the anti-gun laws in place today. Just because one did it then, doesn't mean all will do it tomorrow.

If you disagree, please explain.

 

[PotatoJudge]

I thought about it and was about to vote yes, then realized I should never vote for anything that would take away another's rights. Yeah it's a double standard, there are loopholes, cops are no more qualified or important than other citizens, and it's a bad law BUT- I'm not about to take away somebody's God given rights because mine have been taken away. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not an unconstitutional law; all the other laws that restrict people from carrying are. I understand the fight to get your rights restored, but this is the wrong way to go.

I am sorry either the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies equally to everyone or it does not.

Slaves?

I am sorry but if you support this law then you should support a law allowing judges to CCW. Or Politicians to CCW. Even while you cant. Like in Chicago where city alderman can carry a weapon to protect themselves while you must be defenseless.

Yeah, I support their right to carry. Even if I can't. See above.

 

[glockman19]

A retired LEO is nothing more than another citizen of his/her city, county, state & country. Either let us all have the right to CCW or let them have to qualify like everyone else.

 

[Damien45]

Retired LEO, judges, and politicians shouldn't have special privileges to protect them while in essence denying the same to anyone else.

LEO in general do a great service to communities. As with the Military, they chose to serve, protect and uphold the freedoms we all hold dear. I agree that politicians and judges should not be grouped in with the LEO. In this bill they are not referred as LEO. So please, drop them from this debate.

I don't see those of you who are for getting this bill repealled putting your life in harms way to protect my rights. Mostly because I have no idea what you all do. My understanding is based completely on the nature of your posts. I am making the assumption that you all are not LEO, or Military (which this bill does not include). If some of you are in such fields, I do appologize and give my honest thanks for your service.

 

[Damien45]

A retired LEO is nothing more than another citizen of his/her city, county, state & country. Either let us all have the right to CCW or let them have to qualify like everyone else.

Yet surviving a dangerous career for 15yrs. is the same as John Q. Citizen walking into a 16hr class and shooting 20 rounds?! That is the basic sound of your post. That a retired LEO is just another citizen, no better then the burger flipper at McDonald's. That is ridiculous!

 

[trueblue1776]

A cop is only a law enforcement official in his jurisdiction.

Why should a retired cop/politico have anymore rights than anybody else? If they wanted a CCW when they were off the force they shouldn't have paid dues to a union who usually opposes CCW.

I had a 25mm chain gun when I was in panama, give me a permit to keep one now, even though nobody else can own one here, I was a law enforcement official. Why do cops always think they are better than everybody else?

 

[PotatoJudge]

That a retired LEO is just another citizen, no better then the burger flipper at McDonald's. That is ridiculous!

Are you serious? A person is defined by much more than their career choice.

 

[Damien45]

Why should a retired cop have anymore rights than anybody else? If they wanted a CCW when they were off the force they shouldn't have paid dues to a union who usually opposes CCW.

Again with the blanket statements. Fact of the matter is this, people are basing what they are calling facts on their own opinions.

My first CCW class was taught by a LEO. Many CCW classes are taught by LEO because they want to ensure those who do take the class are properly educated.

Saying a retired LEO should have no more rights then anyone else is the same as saying a retired veteran should not have the medical, commissary or exchange rights they have.

:banghead:

 

[Damien45]

Are you serious? A person is defined by much more than their career choice.

You chose to leave out much of the post that that line referred to. So your question has no merit.

I agree that a person is defined by much more than their career choice, however does your career choice put you in harms way in protection of others?

 

[trueblue1776]

Until my commissary rights are banned in some states/counties/cities I will disagree

Because you choose a career you consider dangerous, does not make you more entitled to a privilege some can't have.

 

[Damien45]

Until my commissary rights are banned in some states/counties/cities I will disagree

Because you choose a career you consider dangerous, does not make you more entitled to a privilege some can't have.

It absolutely gives me the privileges some can't have. I have the privilege to shop tax free at the exchange and commissary. I, by my own free will, protect the rights of all citizens of this country. I, by my own free will, chose to join the Military and put my life in harms way should it be necessary, to uphold the Constitution. You bet it give me the right to such privileges that other's do not have.

However, at the same time, I am held to a higher standard. I am expected to be a better example because when sent overseas I represent this Country and all in it. I do so with Honor, Courage and Commitment. I do so proudly with no shame.

 

[PotatoJudge]

Perhaps you should have said: That a retired LEO is just another citizen, no better qualified to carry a gun then the burger flipper at McDonald's. That is ridiculous!

But you didn't. And I wouldn't put it past anyone to think what you originally wrote. Glad to hear that's not what you meant (right?).

however does your career choice put you in harms way in protection of others?

I'm in medical school, so yes (it will). It's rarely as direct as what a LEO faces, but it's just as real.

 

[trueblue1776]

double standard? I guess I didn't realize cops were of a different blood line than us common folk.

you filled out an application, passed a drug test, did 25 push ups and memorized you 10 codes. It was a career choice.

 

[Oldsportokie]

Reply to poll about HR 218

While on Duty LEO have met and assisted many poeple. Some enimies are willing to wait for an oportunity to carry out any intentions. If they know the Off Duty/Retired/Tourist LEO is forbidden to carry, altercations might escalate. They have exposure to some surrley characters and , In my opinion, have the right to protection angainst retaliation.

 

[Damien45]

Perhaps you should have said: That a retired LEO is just another citizen, no better qualified to carry a gun then the burger flipper at McDonald's. That is ridiculous!

But you didn't. And I wouldn't put it past anyone to think what you originally wrote. Glad to hear that's not what you meant (right?).


Quote:
however does your career choice put you in harms way in protection of others?

I'm in medical school, so yes (it will). It's rarely as direct as what a LEO faces, but it's just as real.

The structure of the post, including the begining of it, was specific to the general tone of the prior posts. At no point before was there a mention of "carrying a gun". So, I posted that in reflection of those who went along the lines of retired LEO are no better then anyone else.

Medical Service is as real, and necessary. I wish you the best in your future.