Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Retired Chicago Cops Get "Hosed" reads 1 January headling, page 15

Discussion in 'Legal' started by alan, Dec 26, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    I suppose it's another case of "whose ox is being gored".

    Spokespersons for, and or leaders of various police organizations have opposed concealed carry by "civilians", matter of fact, some have opposed possession of "those things" by the private citizens, whom they supposedly Serve and Protect. Funny isn't it, how some complain when What Goes Around, Comes Around.

    Read the article for yourselves.
     
  2. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth

    Linky?
     
  3. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    Are we perhaps discussing the situation of the city of Chicago not wanting to certify it's retired officers so they can carry under the nationa carry for LEOs law (whatever the number was ... HR318 or something like that)?

    That's been discussed here already. My understanding is that a fix is in the works -- the state's certifying board is going to certify the retired Chicago officers without the city's blessing.
     
  4. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    Headline in what publication? And why are they posting their headlines for January 1st on December 26th?
     
  5. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    Don:

    I cannot answer your question. The latest issue of GW I have is identified as the issue of January 1, 2006.

    Re the Gun Week Article I referenced, the text of same appears below.

    Retired Chicago Cops Get Hosed By City Leaders



    Gun rights activists in Chicago, IL, and elsewhere might be tempted to chant "welcome to the party" as retired Windy City police officers and the Fraternal Order of Police are angry that the city will not certify the retirees to continue packing pistols under the auspices of the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.

    Congress passed the law two years ago as something of a homeland security measure, reasoning that retired cops have training, and they should also have the means to defend themselves against criminals they may have put behind bars during their careers.

    While many gun rights activists supported the measure, with the expectation that police would subsequently support measures to expand concealed carry by private citizens nationwide-something that has yet to happen-others were not so eager to allow retired police what they felt was a "perk."

    Either way, retired Chicago cops won't be enjoying any benefit from the federal law. According to The Chicago Sun-Times, the city is balking at allowing its retired officers to carry over fears of continued liability. The federal act mandates that re*tired cops must complete refresher training. This is a legal speed bump that has slowed implementation of the new law in many jurisdictions.

    Chicago carries its opposition one step farther, the newspaper said by complaining that there is no national database of retired peace officers who are allowed to go armed. Police Supt. Phil Cline is also hedging that the law does not define how departments should determine a retired officer's "standing," the newspaper reported.

    There are reportedly about 9,000 retired Chicago police officers who might qualify to carry a gun, the newspaper estimated.

    Ironically, retired officers from other agencies, even other states, apparently will be allowed to carry in Chicago, provided they have been certified by their former departments.

    Mark Donahue, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police complained, "They have no right to do this." The New GUN WEEK, January 1, 2006
     
  6. CAS700850

    CAS700850 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,304
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    I hope we can all remember that it is the administration, by far and away the large majority of cases, which opposes RKBA, while many of the officers that work on the streets day in and day out favor RKBA. Look at the members of this board.
     
  7. XD_fan

    XD_fan Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    210
    Location:
    Missouri
    The shoe on the other foot hurts too.

    "Mark Donahue, president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police complained, "They have no right to do this.""

    :what:

    Welcome to the New America.
     
  8. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    This guy doesn't get it either. My despair is exquisite.
     
  9. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    Actually, he has a point. The right to bear arms was actually or effectively eliminated in many areas. Officers in those areas carried them as a privilege of the job. Once they became non-uniformed civilians, they lost the privilege of the job. So, allowing them to retain the privilege without the responsibility was a perk.
     
  10. grnzbra

    grnzbra Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Whenever Sara and Her Million Toadies (a nickname there) has a rally, there always seem to be a sea of blue uniforms behind the speaker. When we in PRNJ (another nickname there) held a rally, not one blue uniform was to be found. Hmmm.
     
  11. gezzer

    gezzer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    NH
    I do not feel bad for them. Do they think they are elite or somthing. How come my carry permit is not good every where. Retired LEO ain't special and it is a bad law any way.

    Let's seperate them from us more than they do Already.:banghead:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page