Poll on a gun law...

[geekWithA.45]

I voted leave well enough alone.

The law is unegalitarian, creates and codifies into law a double standard/more privileged class of citizenship.

Based on NJ having done a similiar thing, and how little it's done for regular folk ccw there, I do not think it contributes much, if anything to widening/deepening public acceptance of armed citizens.

Frankly, the law offends me.

OK, an astute reader would ask, if all that's true, why did you vote to leave it alone?

I voted to leave it alone because we have bigger fish to fry, and this isn't worth lifting a finger to do anything about. In fact, I'm debating if it's really worth the time I'm taking to make this post.

While it offends my sensibilities, it does very little actual damage, if any at all, mostly due to the fact that the public _already_ considers police to be privileged, and for the most part thinks that what this law does has always been the case. Furthermore, IMO, disabusing them of the notion isn't all that productive.

Tearing down the police to our level means that we're still at the same level. That's not progress. Lifting ourselves up to the next rung is.

We're in a war, and war is about logistics and utilization of resources. Expending finite resources on pointless battles isn't prudent.

 

[The Amigo]

From the other thread

Just food for thought say you have children and some lunatic walks in to the school or park and starts shooting kids. And me as an LEO under this law manage to put down the guy who is about to destroy your most loved ones. Would you still think the same? Why not just make CCW in all US Uniform for all no matter if your LEO or private citizen sounds better to me than to say LEOs don't deserve to carry under this bill. We need to stick together not run apart that's were the strength on making changes come from. My 2c

 

[notupperwareplease]

State's rights. It's up to the states to decide it.

On the other hand...
one up on the double standards comment.

 

[battlehatch]

I voted "leave well enough alone". I have alot of friends that are either retired or are currently service as peace officers. I join the academy in November. It's undeniable that police have to deal with the worst in people. I think they should be allowed to protect themselves from any vendetta or revenge from a gangmember or druggie that they put away. I don't think that cops should have any more right to defend themselves than the average Joe Public, but I don't think that an attitude of "If I can have it, they shouldn't either" is the way to go. As regular law abiding citizens, we should continue to pursue our right to defend ourselves through the normal channels, i.e; write your senator, vote, etc., no matter how futile it may seem. People are set in their ways no matter how irrational it may seem, and unfortunately, these are the people that get voted into office...

 

[JCF]

Tearing down the police to our level means that we're still at the same level. That's not progress. Lifting ourselves up to the next rung is.

We're in a war, and war is about logistics and utilization of resources. Expending finite resources on pointless battles isn't prudent.

Hands down, *the best* insight offered thus far.

 

[Old Time Hunter]

Yes, repeal it. It is a double standard and if accepted it supports those that read the second ammendment as the "right to bear arms", but only by a "well regulated militia", hence coming from the ex-LEO militia.

 

[glockman19]

As regular law abiding citizens, we should continue to pursue our right to defend ourselves through the normal channels, i.e; write your senator, vote, etc.,

Retired Police officers are no different than the average law abiding citizen. While I agree they should be allowed to CCW while empolyed as LEO whether on or off duty when you leave the ranks you shouldn't get preferential treatment because you were once this that or the other.

I can see a "Them" and "us" divide in this thread that I don't think for better or worse it will change.

Again, I seem to be able to have passed my CCW for Utah, Florida and can carry in 2/3 of the US legally. Why I can't in California is beyond me. I have gone through training like LEO's passed the FBI background check and am a law abiding tax paying property owning, business owner and a responsible citizen like any LEO. That's where the double standard lies IMHO. I would be willing to test regularly also If I could just be afforded the same as the LEO, but I'm not. BTW, my senator, Dianne Fienstein, mayor Antonio Villaragosa, Governor Arnold, and even local council person, Dennis Zine, CCW if they represent me then Why can't I? Fact is they don't represent me. Sad...truly sad.

 

[battlehatch]

I don't see it as preferential treatment, I see it as someone who has probably put some bad guys in jail in the course of their employment and should be allowed to carry on the basis that one day one of those dirtbags may come back to haunt him.

 

[Feanaro]

Tearing down the police to our level means that we're still at the same level. That's not progress. Lifting ourselves up to the next rung is.

We're in a war, and war is about logistics and utilization of resources. Expending finite resources on pointless battles isn't prudent.

I certainly agree that we have much bigger fish to fry. As a practical matter, it's utterly pointless to go after it right now. This thread shows just a little taste of the "but but but why do you hate the police?!" shower we'd be buried under if we tried. But I took the question as a matter of principle rather than one of practicality.

I don't think that an attitude of "If I can have it, they shouldn't either" is the way to go.

Although many cops are on our side, I suspect even more join us if, say, the AWB or NFA applied to police agencies as much as to us.

I don't see it as preferential treatment, I see it as someone who has probably put some bad guys in jail in the course of their employment and should be allowed to carry on the basis that one day one of those dirtbags may come back to haunt him.

Even in this light, it is STILL biased for police officers and against regular citizens. LEOs aren't the only ones with enemies. The law doesn't afford this consideration to key witnesses against the Mafia. If you head an anti-gang group that serious ticks off the Crips, GD, etc, you can't obtain a permit to carry all over the nation.

 

[Titan6]

Shouldn't be any restriction on carry for anyone including law enforcement. So I say it is a step in the right direction, it just needs to be expanded to the rest of the law abiding people of this country.

 

[Mikee Loxxer]

It should be repealed as it is just another example of some citizens being granted freedoms other law abiding citizens are not. I am so sick of the " I am cop, congressman, former marine, blah, blah and therefore I can be trusted to carry a loaded firearm but you can't be " nonsense. Rights are for everybody. Not for the select few.

 

[glockman19]

This thread shows just a little taste of the "but but but why do you hate the police?!"

NO. I like most LEO's. Just don't like the law as it's written. That's what the thread is about the law not LEO's. If the law afforded non LEO's the same opportunity then I'd be the first to go through whatever they had to do to get the same. Training, Background Checks, personal interviews, whatever. But I'm not. That's where the double standard lies.

We all drive cars that can kill and do kill more than guns and we all have to pass the same tests.

 

[Feanaro]

NO. I like most LEO's.

You know that. I know that. But it's like "support the troops" or "for the children." They are used as shields to prevent others criticizing them without being exposed to idiotic emotional arguments like "why don't you want to protect our children/soldiers/cops?!" If you went after this law because it creates a greater divide between "us" and "them," you would be hang out to dry for being a cop hater or the like.

 

[The Amigo]

Retired Police officers are no different than the average law abiding citizen

How many of you put Colombians cartel guys in jail, deal with dirt bags, Rapist, child molesters, bank robbers all day for 20 + years and you expect me to sit at a park bench and pretend like i shall walk unarmed just cause?
You are right im no different im just hated differently by people that probably would of sold drugs to your kids or would of harmed u in some other way otherwise.

Nobody saying we better than anyone just a job of a different nature. Now someone will say its your choice and my answer to that is it sure was and I would do it again in a heart beat.

And by the way i do have a CCW permit before this law was enacted.

 

[glockman19]

Amigo,

Nice to hear about your CCW. Obviously you have a good cause to carry, but why should I not be able to get one?

As I said:

If the law afforded non LEO's the same opportunity then I'd be the first to go through whatever they had to do to get the same. Training, Background Checks, personal interviews, whatever.

Onec again It's NOT about LEO's as much as it is about the law as it's written. Allow Law Abiding citizens who check out ad go through similar training have the same ability to carry that's all.

Finally, Glad to hear you helped to clean up the streets. Your service is much appreciated. Now enjoy your retirement.

 

[shield20]

As a former LE, (6yrs) I will say this:

1) I think LE is, like most other sub-groups, a typical representation of society - i.e. you have your asses and you have your genuine heroes, most being right in the middle, with a bit more tendency to race TOWARDS trouble instead of racing away
2) Most cops I associated with were no smarter then me, and a few were not all that bright at all. Most also weren't as skilled with firearms.
3) some cops were the most irresponsible people I knew - yet they had a tremendous amount of power; the power tended to influence the irresponsibility, usually in a negative fashion
4) the ONLY advantage they have with regards to this issue is the background check, possibly the small amount of intensive law study, and the knowledge that at least at one time they were able to qualify with a handgun.
5) granting active LE and retired LE the ability to carry lawfully in all states is a nice idea, but it leaves out the rest of us, who - not for nothing - are guaranteed that ability also in the Constitution, and have just as much or more at stake when..." under-defended".
6) while yes, I would very much appreciate an armed off duty LE stepping in to save my kid, say - at school, I also would like to legally have that same ability myself - chances are I will be there more then he/she would, I would have a greater stake in the outcome, and I quite possibly would be more capable too.
7) the law further undermines the very reason for the Militias & the 2nd amendment, which WAS for the people to be able to take an active role in their defense, protection from insurrections, invasions, tyranny, etc. This law is an attempt to have off-duty police serve somewhat in the role the PEOPLE themselves were supposed to serve.


OK - so I don't think it should be repealed, as it is HOPEFULLY a small step in the right direction; I don't like that the govt AGAIN used it commerce powers to step into an area where it otherwise has NO powers. I also don't like the logic that "employees of a govt agency" which serve the people should have ANY privileges the people themselves don't (all that constitutional stuff aside). Once again the govt gets to control us, by throwing out just enough free cheese to make some happy; and in fact it may be a reward to those very "some" it will rely on when the rest of the people have had enough of the control BS.

Should my B-I-L be able to carry anywhere he wants? Yep. Should I? Yep. DO I resent that he can and I can't? Yep. He doesn't even take advantage of it - while I would.

 

[WildeKurt]

I don't think we sould grant special rights to LEO's active or retired. They should live within the same constraints of the law that the rest of us citizens do. If they don't like it, perhaps they could help us change the law in a way that would benifit all of us.

 

[Soybomb]

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

You can turn it into the most noble semantics argument you want, and I'm not saying its right. I'm just saying its not going to help our cause, its going to get fewer people carrying on the streets, and its going to be used against us by the anti's. Other than the warm and fuzzies, what are you thinking this would do to actually help us? Keep your eye on the prize.

 

[The Amigo]

For the record

I'm not retired yet i wish, coming up on November this year. I'm buying a new bike and cruising the crap out of it. And by the way I'm not mad at anyone here i respect all opinions that's the beauty of democracy. Nothing but love..

 

[TCB in TN]

I feel that any citizen should be able to carry, nation wide. I do not think LEO's should rec. any special treatment.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by TCB in TN:
I feel that any citizen should be able to carry, nation wide. I do not think LEO's should rec. any special treatment.

Basically this is how I feel.

 

[Darko]

You have to take small baby steps and this law was one of them. They are never going to one day take a giant leap and say all citizens can carry nation wide regardless. If you repeal this law then you are taking a step backwards. If even law enforcement cannot carry legally nationwide how do expect citizens ever will? You have to look at the big picture and get past the immediate jealousy factor. This law is good. The longer it stays in effect the more and more stories will get out of off duty law enforcement making a difference and protecting people. This will look good and hopefully help the overall movement.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Darko:
You have to take small baby steps and this law was one of them. They are never going to one day take a giant leap and say all citizens can carry nation wide regardless. If you repeal this law then you are taking a step backwards. If even law enforcement cannot carry legally nationwide how do expect citizens ever will? You have to look at the big picture and get past the immediate jealousy factor. This law is good. The longer it stays in effect the more and more stories will get out of off duty law enforcement making a difference and protecting people. This will look good and hopefully help the overall movement.

Has anyone been able to attribute any change in the attitude of fence sitters or anti-gunners due to this law? I have not. All it seems to have done is reinforce the opinion that cops need protection while the rest of us do not.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

I couldn't say yes or no. I'm torn. I hate the idea that there's a separate class of citizens, who have self-defense rights I don't have, and lucrative job opportunities (personal protection) that I don't have.

On the other hand, this does create cracks in the wall, especially places like NJ and NYC.

 

[Action_Can_Do]

Allowing some people certain rights and disallowing them for others will never, ever lead to the right being allowed to all. It won't encourage police officers to support CCW for civilians. Either they do now or they never will. It will give some of them the delusion that they are better able to handle firearms than others. This logic is the same thing as saying that wealthy, white men should be allowed to carry as they please. Surely, others would soon receive the same right.