Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/28/2005 10:55:20 AM EDT
I think HR 218 is a great idea: the more good guys walking about the more likely someone will be around during a terrorist attack.
Is there any bill in the works that would extend the same ability to military types. I find it odd that people "on the front lines of terrorism" are disarmed when going offbase. Retired LEO and LEO out of juristiction do not have powers of arrest, so it seems that would not be a good argument against letting military Officers and NCO's carry in the same places.
THoughts?
Any ideas of who to contact for a similar bill? ( Hon. Mr Cunningham seems only to reply to consituents).
Thank you for your service.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:21:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
I think HR 218 is a great idea: the more good guys walking about the more likely someone will be around during a terrorist attack.
Is there any bill in the works that would extend the same ability to military types. I find it odd that people "on the front lines of terrorism" are disarmed when going offbase. Retired LEO and LEO out of juristiction do not have powers of arrest, so it seems that would not be a good argument against letting military Officers and NCO's carry in the same places.
THoughts?
Any ideas of who to contact for a similar bill? ( Hon. Mr Cunningham seems only to reply to consituents).
Thank you for your service.



The intent of HR218 wasn't to put more officers on the street 100% of the time. You could loosely interpret it as that, but a single officer out of his jurisdiction with nothing more than a cell phone and CCW does not allow him to act as a police officer would normally do so. It's main intent was to provide officers the means to provide defense against persons who might be hell-bent on revenge against the officer or his family, in retaliation for past arrests or actions by the officer.

There's a difference between military and law enforcement related weapons training, specifically the difference is regarding legal use of force. ROE's can, and usually are, completely different for the two groups.

Instead of wasting time carving out little niches for "approved groups", they rather ought to enact a federal law saying no states may prohibit persons from owning any firearms not specifically prohibited by federal law, nor from carrying their firearms, except for such places that you would reasonably expect to not be allowed to carry (courthouses, airports etc)
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:32:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
I think HR 218 is a great idea: the more good guys walking about the more likely someone will be around during a terrorist attack.
Is there any bill in the works that would extend the same ability to military types. I find it odd that people "on the front lines of terrorism" are disarmed when going offbase. Retired LEO and LEO out of juristiction do not have powers of arrest, so it seems that would not be a good argument against letting military Officers and NCO's carry in the same places.
THoughts?
Any ideas of who to contact for a similar bill? ( Hon. Mr Cunningham seems only to reply to consituents).
Thank you for your service.



The intent of HR218 wasn't to put more officers on the street 100% of the time. You could loosely interpret it as that, but a single officer out of his jurisdiction with nothing more than a cell phone and CCW does not allow him to act as a police officer would normally do so. It's main intent was to provide officers the means to provide defense against persons who might be hell-bent on revenge against the officer or his family, in retaliation for past arrests or actions by the officer.

There's a difference between military and law enforcement related weapons training, specifically the difference is regarding legal use of force. ROE's can, and usually are, completely different for the two groups.

Instead of wasting time carving out little niches for "approved groups", they rather ought to enact a federal law saying no states may prohibit persons from owning any firearms not specifically prohibited by federal law, nor from carrying their firearms, except for such places that you would reasonably expect to not be allowed to carry (courthouses, airports etc)




Of course, I agree with a national CCW for all. I also think that was the original intent of the framers. However, wars are won battle, by battle and getting another group approved and demonstrating that it works helps us get closer to that goal.
A LEO out of juristiction may be just a CCW with a cell phone, and that is what I think the military should be off duty as well...universally. I don't desire to have law enforcement powers...if I did I'd be IN law enforcement (and God bless those who are).
I was told today that my workplace was in the top of the potential target list. I think that me, with M.D. plates, DOD officer sticker, and staff decal would put me in potential target range and I'm a bit frustrated that D.C. and Maryland would see me (or any other citizen for that matter) unable to defend myself or those around me.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 2:49:09 PM EDT
What about EMS and firefighters? We're on the front lines here too if you want to get technical.

Screw this self-interest shit. All or none.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 3:26:41 PM EDT
Hell yeah, EMS/Firefighters should carry.

It's not really "self interest shit" but rather taking the left's technique of incrementalism and using it against them.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 4:29:28 PM EDT
that's right, and soon we'll follow that up with all federal state and local government employees.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 5:00:01 PM EDT



Instead of wasting time carving out little niches for "approved groups", they rather ought to enact a federal law saying no states may prohibit persons from owning any firearms not specifically prohibited by federal law, nor from carrying their firearms, except for such places that you would reasonably expect to not be allowed to carry (courthouses, airports etc)


Common sense. Therefore the left will oppose this to the bitter end.

Good post BTW
Top Top