Poll on a gun law...

[Charshooter]

If it is not broke, don't fix it!

The law that keeps old lawmen on duty is a good thing

 

[glockman19]

Tecumseh,

many good points. Well stated.

 

[Autolycus]

Remember if you expand it you have to alter a lot of it. The whole 15 years as a LEO thing. Going to a department qualification etc.
A lot of this stuff does not apply to non LEO. So how does one expand it? How do you qualify to agency standards? By the state , the county, or city/town that you live in? Should you have to qualify yearly?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.



SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is 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 has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

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

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

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.



SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(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.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.



Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

That quote was pulled from: http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html

 

[Damien45]

Damien45,
YES, you characterized me as a, "spoiled child who expects the world given to them every morning at breakfast." backhanded but not directly.

I'm over 10 years your senior, respect your elders.

It was not intended to be an attack towards you. That is why I included "the statement makes me think of". I do appologize for that misunderstanding.

Potatojudge:
I unfortunately feel at times that our Rights have been degraded to privileges given and removed at whim by the Government. However, this is due to the Government responding to the fears of other citizens. Which, at the time, not enough of us fought to protect them.

 

[Cuda]

Damien45

I am not saying that LEO (including retired) is better than Civilian. I am not saying Military is better than Civilian. I am saying the Government has chosen to give LEO rights over general public, and we should not try to take that away. We should use it as a step towards equal rights for all.

But the government does not have the ability to give rights or infringe upon the rights we all have..

The fact that LEO was, in my opinion, attacked and generally considered nothing is what I started defending. I lost sight of the point of the thread. I believe in the individuals in Law Enforcement because they do us all a service.

Police do serve us, but so do doctors, laywers and don't forget firefighters and our military and they can't carry, why?

IF this arguement was prior to the bill being passed, while it was still in it's consideration days, I would not support such a seperation. However, it exists now. I will support it because it is, to me, a step towards all having the same rights.

But we already have the same rights, remember the 2A.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to take away the leo's right to carry, I just don't see special rights granted to them as a stepping stone for the rest of us.. To me it just further strengthens the wall between the elite and the people..

C

 

[PotatoJudge]

So because of some bad laws we're willing to hold other peoples' rights ransom to secure our own? I understand the politics of it and the argument against stratification, but it doesn't sit well with me.

I unfortunately feel at times that our Rights have been degraded to privileges given and removed at whim by the Government.

I get that too. It's the way news stories are written or how a politician words something in addition to the laws that infringe on our rights. It'll keep you on your toes trying to mentally correct these things as you read or listen, but it's worth it.

I just don't see special rights granted to them as a stepping stone for the rest of us.

See how it just slips by.

 

[Damien45]

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to take away the leo's right to carry, I just don't see special rights granted to them as a stepping stone for the rest of us.. To me it just further strengthens the wall between the elite and the people..

C

I recognize the error in my wording. I should have been saying privilege instead of right.

I agree that there are MANY who should be considered that are not. Truth is all of us should be. I am defending the law as it is. I am supporting a Bill that is currently in the works that will open it to all.

I, personally, do not agree with removing privileges that are currently in place. I, personally, want to see the restrictions removed for all.

And yes, at this point I would consider the LEOSA to be privileges as opposed to rights since it does target specific people, not all people. Our Rights have been, for lack of a better term, revoked. Until such time as we can all CCW nationally, we should work together to restore this. Even if that means granting privileges in small "communities" (such as LEO). Just my opinion.

 

[skinnyguy]

Repeal the law.

The average Joe has to go jump through hoops and do a song and dance for the sheer joy of some leftist controlling those things that should be left alone.

Let the retired LEO's jump through those same hoops and just like the rest of us, be treated as though we are guilty until proven........................ nah... just guilty. Maybe then something will change for the better, but I'm not holding my breath.

but that's just me....

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

LOL!!!


But no, can't you see? Cop carry will lead to concealed carry in Chicago for civilians! Duh!

 

[Darko]

First off I'm a cop. I believe that all United State Citizens should be able to CC if the are not a felon or a juvenile. That said any of you using cry baby tactics to try and take away our ability to carry firearms off duty where we could possibly save a life is no better than anyone in the Brady camp. Grow up, I know there is sort of a double standard and like I stated I believe all of you should be able to carry as well but just because you can't don't cry and try to take the ability away from us. I'm not going to be left weaponless and not be able to protect life just because you people have a chip on your shoulder. You should be angry there is a double standard but don't treat us like we are the bad guys and strip us of our weapons. Go join the Brady campaign if that's the case.

 

[Soybomb]

"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'm sorry I should have been a littlemore specific, that isn't my personal view as much as it is a recognition of the opposition we'd face afterwards.

If you revoke leosa and then try to give a state concealed carry, or change a may issue to a shall issue state I promise that the brady group/vpc/etc will be very quick to say "18 months ago we revoked a national law giving retired police officers the abillity to carry concealed weapons, if these dedicated well trained vetran servants of our community cannot have firearms its just common sense to not allow untrained ordinary people to carry concealed weapons on our streets." No matter how noble the sentiment behind wanting to revoke leosa, it would only be a blow to concealed carry in general.

The average Joe has to go jump through hoops and do a song and dance for the sheer joy of some leftist controlling those things that should be left alone.

Let the retired LEO's jump through those same hoops and just like the rest of us

Why don't we change the laws that give us hoops to jump through then instead of trying to get less armed people on the street? Thats the goal of the brady bunch, not us. It can be done, I got my PA permit by sending in $20 and a 1 page application with my picture. A week later I had the license. I didn't have to take a test, be finger printed, shoot a target 3 yards away, or anything of the sort. I've never even been to the state. Leo's have to at least qualify under leosa, plus theres the 15+ years of work before too. If you're going to work to change a law, lets make our existing carry laws better and get rid of the hoops (good luck, alot of people here even support those hoops) not try to take the right to carry from other people.

 

[Autolycus]

Soybomb: How can this be a right for other people? I thought that rights applied to everyone?

When you deny one group the ability ability to do something then you have made it a priveledge.

Originally posted by Darko:
First off I'm a cop. I believe that all United State Citizens should be able to CC if the are not a felon or a juvenile. That said any of you using cry baby tactics to try and take away our ability to carry firearms off duty where we could possibly save a life is no better than anyone in the Brady camp. Grow up, I know there is sort of a double standard and like I stated I believe all of you should be able to carry as well but just because you can't don't cry and try to take the ability away from us. I'm not going to be left weaponless and not be able to protect life just because you people have a chip on your shoulder. You should be angry there is a double standard but don't treat us like we are the bad guys and strip us of our weapons. Go join the Brady campaign if that's the case.

How is it a crybaby tactic? It is a tactic that has not been tried before. When ever there is a major anti-gun bill, like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, I see LEOs exempted. I know not all LEOs are anti-gun but I dont see many of them taking part in the gun rights movement. I am thinking of a way to get the rights of us gunowners restored. You should support it on that premise.

I am forced to go weaponless everyday and not be able to protect life because I am not a police officer. I just am looking for the most effective way to get equal CCW laws and I really believe that if you subject everyone to the same laws. You will see the Brady Bunch and other anti-gun groups stop parading around with LEO Chiefs and organizations helping them.

Here is a good read: http://www.saf.org/journal/3_Blackman.html

 

[poor_richard]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The government hasn't any right to restrict, nor allow any one group of people the right to keep and bear arms (unless they decide to repeal the 2nd amendment). Therefore, since it is not a "power delegated to the United States by the Constitution", it should be repealed (along with all the other unConstitutional arms infringements).

 

[Autolycus]

Poor Richard: Exactly. So this bill is unconstitutional. All the more reason to repeal it.

 

[romma]

If the cops or the government can't trust me, I don't trust them.

 

[waynedm]

The 2nd amendment was to protect us against bad government. This law will make the government even more powerful and take away more power from us.

 

[Zundfolge]

Now, what have you done for anyone, other than yourself, lately?

Forced altruism is no virtue. (see ... you forced me to quote Rand again ).



Anyway, I find the opposition to this law a bit short sighted. The idea that giving retired LEOs "extra rights" is a bad thing is something I agree with, but lets not take it away from them because we can't have it, lets use the inequity as a wedge to force the state to recognize the rights of ALL. If that means that in the interim there's a special class of citizen, then so-be-it. In the long run this law gets us closer to national right to carry than repealing it would.

This law will make the government even more powerful and take away more power from us.

How?

Retired LEO's are NO LONGER GOVERNMENT AGENTS, they are citizens like the rest of us. If we say that because of their service to the state they should get extra privelidges, then fine ... it still increases the number of armed citizens out there and that alone is a good thing for two reasons 1)More guns in the hands of good guys means more risk for criminals. 2)More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means we can erode the STUPID notion that citizens can't be trusted with arms. and 3)Eventually the inequity of it all can be used as a reason to EXPAND carry rights, not restrict them more.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Cops don't mind one bit because it is a special privilege for them because they're "special" remember. The word "us" used a bit too much.

Proves my statements of the past that there exists and "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Anyway, they're pretty bad, but they're not as bad as the pathetic gun owners who are so desperate to get concealed carry in their miserable anti-gun cities and states that they believed that giving extra privileges to police will somehow translate to them getting concealed carry someday. How absurd. I won't dredge this up again, I've thoroughly covered this in past threads and have completely shown why this line of thinking is flawed.


This law is highly destructive to our Democracy. Should be repealed. The argument made by some people in this thread that it should be supported despite being a "double standard" is ridiculous to say the least, as this is not by any means some sort of interim step toward universal concealed carry for CIVILIANS.

 

[DMK]

My personal opinion is the more weapons in the hands of good guys, the better. Keeps criminals wondering who's armed and who's easy prey.

It's a step backward to disarm any law abiding citizen.

The anti-gun lobby uses incrementalism against us. This is incrementalism for us.

 

[PotatoJudge]

Anybody have a link to the wording of the law? I'm having trouble finding anything but summaries of the law.

 

[The Amigo]

http://njlawman.com/Feature Pieces/HR 218.htm

Like i said in the other post you are barking at the wrong tree. Cops don't make laws they only enforce them. Take it to your politician they are the ones making restrictives laws to keep law abiding citizens from carrying.
The more armed good people on my side the better. I voted keep the law.
This mentality of because you have ice cream and i don't wont get us anywhere it seems childish to me. Its like misery loves company. Keep your heat on the politicians.

 

[Juna]

I absolutely think that LEOs should be considered regular citizens when off duty. I cannot stand the special privileges that LEOs get, whether on duty or off. I think it's flagrantly unethical and morally wrong. Unless we can CCW anywhere (as we should be able to), then they shouldn't be able to. That said, I think we should ALL be able to CCW anywhere in the USA. So in summation, I'd say change the law to the "Citizen Safety Act" and include every adult in America (except violent criminals, etc.). However, since that won't happen, I say repeal it. Fairness should prevail.

 

[Bigjake]

unacceptable. This is am much crap as the whole Senators allowed to pack heat in DC with impunity

 

[Sry0fcr]

If I can't carry anywhere I want neither can they.

 

[PotatoJudge]

Thanks Amigo.

Nowhere in the law does it restrict non-LEOs from carrying. It's kind of like arguing against a law that gives a woman the right to free speech, just because it doesn't say "and men too." It's not LEOSA that is the problem, it's the other laws that restrict carry.

Of course, it recognizes that "firearms" does not include automatic guns, silencers, or destructive devices. This is unconstitutional, but is in reference to other laws.