Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 12/30/2001 5:22:23 AM EDT
Something I received in an e-mail: Dear Colleagues: As you know, H.R. 218 is the proposed legislation that will allow all qualified active and retired law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed weapon on and off duty in all 50 states. Right now the bill is gaining momentum, but needs our collective support. Join the thousands of active and retired law enforcement officers who have signed the petition to Congress in support of H.R. 218. Signatures collected will be delivered to Congress in preparation for a vote on H.R. 218. Sign the petition at: [url]http://www.hr218.com/CCCnavbarpetition.htm[/url] ABOUT H.R. 218 H.R. 218 is the one bill before Congress that is supported by nearly every national organization made up of rank and file law enforcement officers. The cops on the street are more likely to know about and support H.R. 218 then any other bill before Congress today. Why? Because H.R. 218 saves lives -- it provides much needed protections for law enforcement officers and their families. At the same time, H. R 218 makes our communities safer by empowering our law enforcement officers with the tools they need to save lives. H.R. 218 - The Community Protection Act THE FACTS H.R. 218, endorsed by law enforcement, guarantees that active and retired law enforcement will be able to carry their firearms in all jurisdictions. Exemption of Qualified Active and Retired Law Enforcement Officers from State laws Prohibiting the Carrying of Concealed Firearms
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 5:43:47 AM EDT
I think it's a great idea and I signed it. However, I also think to get real monentum and the legislators to support it we are going got have to have the non LEO's behind it. The only way to do this is to get a national concealed carry law for every legally able person in the country.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 9:45:43 AM EDT
I'm all for it, and the Texas Municipal Police Assn (among others)has been pushing it for years. I used to do fugitive escorts, traveled all over the country. It sure would have made things easier. (esp with the airlines) However, responses to this topic on various gun boards has been uniformly hostile. It really brings out the tinfoil hat crowd. I see it as the first step for nationwide carry for EVERYONE, they see it as some sort of goofball govt plot, akin to flouride in the drinking water. Just go to some board's General Discussion and post this question. It's not to far a stretch to see these folks actively campagning AGAINST the bill.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 9:49:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By seb127: I think it's a great idea and I signed it. However, I also think to get real monentum and the legislators to support it we are going got have to have the non LEO's behind it. The only way to do this is to get a national concealed carry law for every legally able person in the country.
View Quote
Excellent point! Why limit a NCCW permit to LEO's? I don't want to hear "This is just the first step", or "A civilian NCCW will be easier to pass with this legislation in place". I'm sorry, but across the board, I have seen no great LEO support for my firearms rights. That said, the more armed good guys in our society, the better for us all.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 12:07:41 PM EDT
Rabbit, You haven't learned a thing from the anti-gun crowd. Incrementalism is the method they have used, and continue to use to erode the gun rights of the law abiding citizens. Our side has adopted this tactic and there are now 30 some states where concealed carry is now legal and the movement continues to roll. HR 218 sets the precident; nationwide recognition of the acts of the states that permit officers to carry concealed off-duty. Do you know who opposes HR 218 in Congress? The anti-gun crowd. Why? Because they know what would come next. They wrote the book. Face it, you hate law enforcement and you don't want them to get national concealed carry even if you get it. Go ahead and be selfish. It's your own foot you're shooting.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 12:50:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Rabbit, You haven't learned a thing from the anti-gun crowd. Incrementalism is the method they have used, and continue to use to erode the gun rights of the law abiding citizens. Our side has adopted this tactic and there are now 30 some states where concealed carry is now legal and the movement continues to roll. HR 218 sets the precident; nationwide recognition of the acts of the states that permit officers to carry concealed off-duty. Do you know who opposes HR 218 in Congress? The anti-gun crowd. Why? Because they know what would come next. They wrote the book. Face it, you hate law enforcement and you don't want them to get national concealed carry even if you get it. Go ahead and be selfish. It's your own foot you're shooting.
View Quote
DaveG, why did I just know that you'd show up! My suggestion was that a NCCW for all "citizens" would garner a wider base of support. Why don't you ask all the cops I shoot with if I hate them? I have always supported law enforcement, with words and with my wallet (although after the press conference your National FOP had with Bill Clinton preaching the travesty of "Cop Killer Bullets" and "Assult Weapons" they don't see any more of my money). I think it's a really hard job, and for the most part, the men behind the badge deserve our respect and admiration. But all the elitest bu!!$h!t, especially from you, does not rate consideration.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 3:28:10 PM EDT
This is 'civilian bashing' I demand this thread be locked I am all for active/retired LEO's getting the right to carry in all 50 states, who dares speak for me ? After we support you guys, I know we can count on your membership to support us, as well. Dave, we are at war, and it's here, and is not going away soon. We are not the enemy. I'd back your '6'...you could do worse....GIB PS: I hope there is a requalification rider, hate to get greased by a 80 year old LEO's that eye's are 20/200 and thinks a Glock is a German timepiece....fire for effect
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 3:51:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gib187th: This is 'civilian bashing' I demand this thread be locked PS: I hope there is a requalification rider, hate to get greased by a 80 year old LEO's that eye's are 20/200 and thinks a Glock is a German timepiece....fire for effect
View Quote
Stop it, you're making me laugh.[;)]
Originally Posted by Rabbit9: But all the elitest bu!!$h!t, especially from you, does not rate consideration.
View Quote
Something like 1 in 7 of the Police officers killed are killed off duty, because of something they did on duty, or because they felt they had a duty to act because of something they saw while off duty, and reverted to being a LEO. I make about 4 arrests a week, some minor some major. That generates a few hard feelings. Even from aresstees that say what they did was wrong they still say they are pissed at me for arresting them. About every other person I arrest comments on how polite I am........ still the resntment is there. I, along with more that a few other officers, am more than willing to get between you and the fan if it is struck by an unspecified dark substance. I'm also willing to look for and arrest the person who is responsible for said substance. Is it too much to ask that in return for being willing to expose myself to harm for others that I be able to defend myself, or others, if I run into a person that I arrested, rightfully, or a situation that requires me to turn the out the "off duty" sign? It's not about elitism, most LEO's would probably tell you that for the most part they are ordinary people willing to do difficult things when called upon. It doesn't make any of us better than anyone else, we just put into more difficult situations more often than most people.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 3:56:18 PM EDT
I signed it and I hope that it will do some good, this should have been legal all along. 7th
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 4:46:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2001 6:12:16 PM EDT by Dave_G]
gib187th, Really! [rolleyes] Everyone knows that a Glock is an [b]AUSTRIAN[/b] timepiece.[:D] Rabbit, Of course I showed up. I'm one of the moderators of this forum. I show up on every active topic between 10 and 20 times a day. I support national recognition of all state CCW/CHL/Whatever you want to call its. Your belief that NCCW for all "citizens" would garner a wider base of support is totally at odds with the real world, though. The level of support in Congress behind universal recognition is about 20% that of the support behind HR 218 with co-sponsors never numbering more than 45 or so and it has been defeated at least four times in the House that I'm aware of. No "elitist BS" here. I appreciate every bit of support my fellow officers and I received from law abiding citizens when I was on the job and which they continue to receive today. I also understand that, in Robert A. Heinlein's words, "An armed society is a polite society." When the goblins don't know who's armed, they tend to drift back to property crimes and away from crimes against persons and the attendent injury and deaths that occur. You said, "I have seen no great LEO support for my firearms rights." You also said, "...The same law that applies to the civilian and JBT alike." For you to brand all of law enforcement "Jack Booted Thugs" and then expect them to offer any kind of support for your desires is a bit out beyond the left field fence. Unless, of course, you want to apologize for that slur...
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 6:29:37 PM EDT
If you want to see 200 odd posts on this go to: http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51136&perpage=25&pagenumber=1 PS I pulled the congressional record and testimoney b/f the subcomitee on this (its about 20 pgs) and will make it available to any one who emails me. I will block and paste it into the email so no downloading issues - virus' incompatability et. Just note HR218 in subject so I don't delete you.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 7:10:46 PM EDT
DaveG, as far as legislation is concerned, what I meant was that we should all get on the same boat. While your right in saying that a NCCW for LEO's has more support than a similar measure for the general populace, the efforts of common civilians might help your cause and indeed your support could surely help ours. OLY-M4gery said it best: "Something like 1 in 7 of the Police officers killed are killed off duty, because of something they did on duty, or because they felt they had a duty to act because of something they saw while off duty, and reverted to being a LEO." - WE RECOGNIZE YOUR NEED. Dave, I would appreciate you leaving my words in context if you choose to quote me. My comment about "JBT's" was in reference to another thread in which an LEO stated that he didn't have to obey the law. A civilian that believes that they don't have to obey the law is a criminal, a LEO that believes that they don't have to obey the law is a JBT. That is my definition, it fit the comment, and it stands unedited. This "label" was given in specific context and should not (and was not meant to be) applied in general. I believe you locked that thread.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 7:55:33 PM EDT
done! But and it's a big but! [:D] I wrote a letter to the senior rep who is heading the committe that this bill is in. I forget his name. Well, the return letter was less than favorable. The Rep. basically told me, he does not support this because this will be basically the federal goverment, telling the states to do this. He feels that this is a state business and something the federal goverment shouldn't be doing. Has this progressed since then? I guess I got my answer late summer. Let's keep our fingers crossed. Oh btw, has the NRA and GOA picked up sponsoring this?
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 9:51:45 PM EDT
Rabbit9, Check your email.
Link Posted: 12/30/2001 10:18:03 PM EDT
Make noise Team...This needs attention NOW.
Link Posted: 12/31/2001 7:03:18 AM EDT
Signed
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 2:34:29 PM EDT
H.R.218 has been around in various forms for a number of years. It has never received a straight up or down vote. Currently it has over 238 co sponsors and is supported by the FOP and LEAA, among others. The Chairman of the subcommitte refuses to allow a vote, claiming " it would be like the wild west". My Congressman refuses to co sponsor claiming he has issues with standards for depatmental qualification varying across State lines. Both claims are BS. The Bill has enough support to initiate a discharge petition. It's unlikely that the politicians will have enough courage to to this. A few years ago the anti's tried to kill that version of the Bill by attaching a rider to include all civillian permit holders. It was never voted on. I definetly agree with the incrementalism arguement. If we could get this Bill passed, it would be extremely unlikely to have any negative impact. Within a relatively short period of time, a Bill to include civilian CCW permit holders would be introduced. The anti's know this and know that neither situation would result in an increase of firearms offenses. Without an increase in these types of offenses, they would have to resort to emotional arguements, which would be less effective. The FOP does currently oppose adding civilian CCW permit holders to the Bill. This is more an indication of the leadership position, than the membership. The LEAA has always supported including civilian permit holders.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 4:01:57 PM EDT
Just signed it. What's the deal with civilian NCCW. First I would like to say is that the training the civilians get to receive thier ccw SUCKS and I wouldn't trust a civilian next to me in a gun fight, unless they were ex-military. That's my .02
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 4:12:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By County669: Just signed it. What's the deal with civilian NCCW. First I would like to say is that the training the civilians get to receive thier ccw SUCKS and I wouldn't trust a civilian next to me in a gun fight, unless they were ex-military. That's my .02
View Quote
Casting stones, are we?
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 4:56:21 PM EDT
The point is that the civilian NCCW provision was attached to a prior version of this Bill that was introduced years ago. It was attached then by democrats in order to kill the Bill. I would look for some similar action this time. They will look for every excuse to not support this Bill without appearing to be anti Law Enforcement. If it's included, this Bill won't pass. If by some mistake on their part it passed, I highly doubt that there would be a big influx of civilians attempting to become involved in any gun fight. I don't know the exact number, but I think that over 30 States now have " shall issue" CCW laws. There has not be a problem of that kind in those States. If there had been, I beleive that it would have been in the National media. I can't speak for other States but I understand that this State includes alot of information on liability issues in the CCW permit classes and stresses that a CCW permit does not make any individual a law enforcement officer. Having said that, I wouldn't want most civilians backing me up either. I don't think it will be an issue.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 5:12:13 PM EDT
I neglected to mention that the LEAA is the only LE organization that I know of that supports including civilians in National CCW permits. The LEAA is very conservative and very pro LE. They do take some politically unpopular stands. They also support repealing the assault weapon and magazine ban.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 6:47:22 PM EDT
[b]What's the deal with civilian NCCW. First I would like to say is that the training the civilians get to receive thier ccw SUCKS and I wouldn't trust a civilian next to me in a gun fight, unless they were ex-military[b/] Well, this is probably one of the most arrogant statements I've seen in awhile. You obviously are sorely misinformed about why civilians carry handguns. What makes you think the average CCW holder wants to join you in a firefight? We carry for the same reason you do - to save our own butts. I can assure you that I would be hard pressed to ever assist a LEO even in the most dire of situations, not because I have anything against cops, rather I do not want to be confused as a BG, or incur any liability.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 7:31:42 PM EDT
County669 Member I'm sorry I have to reply. How about if they did a tour @ thunder ranch? If your reference is to what it takes to get a ccw permit in OK. been there done that. Class room was more on ethics, law and don't do that. Not firearms handling. Not that different from getting a drivers license would you say? I know guys with a badge who let their ammo corode because they don't get to the range except to qualify. You know them too, don't you? You aren't from around my part of Okla are you? Which branch of the military? What MOS? he he. Are you concerned about a civi. getting in your way or shooting you by accident? PS I think that you shold be able to pack in any and all Shall issue states. I think that by through all of those states you could gain some ground. I believe that states like Kalifornia and some eastern seaboard states will fight this bill.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 8:39:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2002 8:40:17 PM EDT by County669]
That's my point! There needs to be more training for CCW holders more firearms handling. At least we go back once a year to quality for day and night fire. If CCW holders had more training than I won't have a problem with them carrying a NCCW.
Link Posted: 1/3/2002 9:19:05 PM EDT
County 669, While I agree the average CCW holder should be better trained (and that is precisely why I compete monthly at IDPA and practice on my own much more often), I would not want to make extensive training mandatory. Why? For a number of reasons, starting first with the fact that the gun-grabber facists would love to use extraordinarily high levels of proficiency as a back-door attempt to reduce CCWs, and eventually ban them altogether. Second, the issue of training with regard to CCW holders vs. LEOs is one of appels and oranges. It is the very intent of CCW that makes limited training appropriate. CCW holders, statistically, will almost never have to draw their weapon, ever, period. LEOs may have to draw their weapons on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. If a CCW holder does draw his/her gun, it is only under extreme conditions, and in this sense is analogous to a home breakin. Would you tell a law-abiding citizen that they can not defend themselves and their family against imminent danger to life in their own home? Why is this any different than on the street? Yes, its possible that other innocent civilians may be present, but the evidence from years of concealed carry in over 30 states demonstrates that bystanders are not in danger from CCW holders. We act, almost without exception, both responsibly and with great restraint. Furthermore, as CCW holders, we know that we have a legal obligation to remove ourselves from a dangerous situation if we can do so safely. You, as a LEO, do not have that option. You cannot run away if someone pulls a knife on you whereas I as a CCW will do exactly that if I can. As a LEO, you must stay and defuse the situation. Your extensive training is appropriate for your job as a professional. Our training is appropraite for our roles as citizens.You stated that you wouldn't want a civilian backing you up, and you know what, I wouldn't want a CCW holder to back me up either in your shoes because we are not trained for interdiction, for arrests, or for assisting officers. In summary, I trust reasonable people to make the decisions that are right at those critical moments, knowing that they have been dutifully informed of the potential civil and criminal liabilities associated with the use of a gun. It is the very nature of our republic that law-abiding citizens be afforded the opportunity to exercise their civic rights and responsibilities and the issue of civilians carrying guns is a perfect example of that in practice.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 9:04:56 AM EDT
"Wouldn't trust a civilian in a gun fight next to me..." isn't that sweet. A retired cop is a civilian. Most civilian gun owners shoot their guns more than most police officers. At a range in PG County, MD, a few members of their swat team were out practicing...a bunch of us were watching them and started laughing amongst oursleves at how bad they were...we answered their challenge to try their course. We beat them for time and accuracy (this was 10 years ago, so they may have gotten better) No BS, we just shot a lot more than they did. Just like the Lautenburg Amendment, which took guns out of a lot of cops hands, the police tried and are still trying to get their cops excused from the law the rest of us are bound by. Now somehow, we can't be trusted, but they can...BUT, there are less accidental shooting of innocent people by civilians and CCW than cops. Less civilians are killed by their own guns than cops (although, we don't try and put handcuffs on people which is when they lose their guns)...but police with their guns don't have a stellar reputation. I don't support the law if it excludes other civilians...my families life is no less valuable than a cops family.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 10:55:49 AM EDT
I wasn't trying to start a flame war
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:39:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2002 5:05:14 PM EDT by Dave_G]
I can see why non-law enforcement CCW holders are unhappy that HR 218 only covers active and retired law enforcement. The problem is that there is insufficient support in Congress to get universal CCW recognition. Period. The Democrats typically add or attempt to add universal recognition to bills just to kill them. Those who oppose it for law enforcement simply because they don't get it right away, too, are being played like cheap fiddles by the anti-gun folks. You are doing their job for them. They actually argue against LE NCCW over training, legal and states rights issues, not so much because those issues are valid, but because civilian NCCW is certain to follow. If HR 218 goes through, it will set a precident and make it much easier for civilian NCCW to pass. It might take a few years, but it would happen. Oppose HR 218 and I guarantee you'll never see it. You can join us and beat the antis at their own incrementalism game, or you can join HCI and the other anti-gunners and continue to limit your own rights. Acting like a spoiled, selfish, whining little child helps no one. One other thing, the vast majority of us support civilian CCW. Most of us don't want to see someone in civilian clothes, civilian or off-duty officer without a prominently displayed badge or identification that he doesn't know, come running into an incident with a drawn weapon simply because it requires the officer to divide his attention between a suspect and an unknown individual. It could easily get him killed. There are also liability issues. If the officer allows a civilian CCW holder to participate, and the civilian does something that causes death or injury outside the department's policy guidelines, the officer and the department are most likely going to be liable. Shooting ability for LEO and civilian alike is an unknown factor. How well you perform on a range does not necessarily indicate how well you will perform in a high stress shooting situation.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 1:44:05 PM EDT
One other thing, as County669 suggested, this is moving in the direction of a flame war. If you have a problem with someone or their position, take it off the board to email. Violation of the Forum Conduct Guidelines won't be tolerated.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 4:10:36 PM EDT
Thanks for the info./link, Waverunner. I sent it to everyone in my address book...hopefully they'll all do the right thing. Cloak-
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 4:29:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Trakehner: "Wouldn't trust a civilian in a gun fight next to me..." isn't that sweet. A retired cop is a civilian. Most civilian gun owners shoot their guns more than most police officers. At a range in PG County, MD, a few members of their swat team were out practicing...a bunch of us were watching them and started laughing amongst oursleves at how bad they were...we answered their challenge to try their course. We beat them for time and accuracy (this was 10 years ago, so they may have gotten better) No BS, we just shot a lot more than they did. Just like the Lautenburg Amendment, which took guns out of a lot of cops hands, the police tried and are still trying to get their cops excused from the law the rest of us are bound by. Now somehow, we can't be trusted, but they can...BUT, there are less accidental shooting of innocent people by civilians and CCW than cops. Less civilians are killed by their own guns than cops (although, we don't try and put handcuffs on people which is when they lose their guns)...but police with their guns don't have a stellar reputation. I don't support the law if it excludes other civilians...my families life is no less valuable than a cops family.
View Quote
Well said, I totally agree.
Link Posted: 1/4/2002 5:04:21 PM EDT
Trakehner, You don't post an email address on your profile so this will have to do. I would like to direct your attention to the Forum Conduct Guidelines, specifically: 6) Pure trolling. Either to piss someone off or simply for your personal enjoyment. If you're here to cause trouble, it will be a very short stay. Your post is off topic and a heartbeat away from Trolling. The topic is an informational one, not an invitation to a debate. If you wish to debate this issue, take it to GD where you will find plenty of trolls to support your opinions. Posting them here, in this context, is not appropriate. Consider this a warning. Dave G Moderator
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:17:10 AM EDT
I wrote a letter to LEAA about this and got a response from them. Both letters are posted here: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=84252[/url]
Top Top