Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/12/2004 9:57:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 9:58:12 AM EST by 9divdoc]
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134209/posts



Police Group Asks Congress, 'How Many More Cops Must Die?'
U.S. Newswire | 5-12-04 | Unknown

Posted on 05/12/2004 12:55:04 PM CDT by SmithPatterson

Police Group Asks Congress, 'How Many More Cops Must Die?'; Life Saving Legislative Priority of Rank and File Cops Stalled in
Congress

5/12/2004 12:26:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Ted Deeds of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), 703-847-2677

WASHINGTON, May 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- As America marks the ultimate sacrifices made by men and women in blue during
National Police Week, one law enforcement group is placing at least some blame, squarely at the feet of Congress. The Law
Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) suggests that Congress' failure to enact life-saving legislation that would allow
qualified off duty and retired officers to carry their firearms in all 50 states, is partly responsible.

While the nation mourns officers killed in the line of duty and the capitol is filled with officers from across the country,
politicians will make speeches, thanking and claiming support for the men and women who risk their lives to keep our
neighborhoods safe. Next week, after the tears and the speeches, Congress will return to business as usual, and that
business includes keeping the number one legislative priority of America's law enforcement officers on the back burner.

H.R. 218, The Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act, (S.253 in the Senate) has overwhelming bi-partisan support, on paper.
Some 293 Members of the House of Representatives and 68 Senators have signed on as cosponsors. Yet despite the
bi-partisan backing which includes leadership from both sides of the aisle, this life- saving legislation has languished in
Congress for more than a decade.

Backed by virtually every organization representing the rank and file law enforcement officers, this legislation has yet to
receive even a simple hearing in the House of Representatives in nearly five years, despite having a majority of the Members
of Congress signed on as cosponsors in the 108th and 107th Congresses.

Across the country, officers for whom H.R. 218 is the highest legislative priority, are fed up with Congress' failure to take real
action in support of the officers on the street. Said one LEAA member, a patrol officer who asked not to be identified, "Our
guy (Congressional Representative) told me that he agrees with me on this issue, but that's all he's done, imagine if police
officers simply told the citizens they protect, 'hey, we agree with you that we don't like bad guys, but don't expect us to
actually take action,' well just agreeing with me isn't enough to get my vote."

LEAA Executive Director Jim Fotis, a highly decorated retired officer, pleaded to Congressional leadership to take action, or
risk alienating the public safety community. Said Fotis, "Don't come asking for support in November when you've done nothing
in the last two years to advance the number one legislative priority of rank and file law enforcement."

For more information about H.R. 218 or S. 253 please visit: http://www.leaa.org/218/

------

With over 75,000 Members and Supporters nationwide, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) is the nation's largest
coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 9:59:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 10:01:21 AM EST by Langadune]
This article carefully omits what legislation the LEAA is demanding except possibly the retired cops CCW.

This legislation would not protect the men and women (myself included) who choose to protect and serve. It would help those who have retired from that calling.

BTW, I was under the impression the most states already allow retired LEO to CCW
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:02:20 AM EST
Guess what is going to be tacked onto this bill when it finally comes up for a vote.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:04:53 AM EST
I trying to be a dick or anything but, If we the people can't CCW in all 50 states to protect ourselves(can't even CCW in my own state) than why should cops be allowed to? Are there lives worth more than anyone elses? Is there safety more important than anyone elses?

Not trying to be a dick I just don't like shit like that that gives one group of people preferance over everyone else, especially when it comes to people being able to defend their lives, based soly on the job description. It's not right at all.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:06:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:10:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Langadune:
This article carefully omits what legislation the LEAA is demanding except possibly the retired cops CCW.

This legislation would not protect the men and women (myself included) who choose to protect and serve. It would help those who have retired from that calling.

BTW, I was under the impression the most states already allow retired LEO to CCW



So yer saying this would only benifit retired LEOs if it were to be passed? If so thats even shittier than a bill that would allow LEOs to CCW in all 50 states. See my post above for more on why I think it;s shitty.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:10:42 AM EST
[cop]You are a 2nd class lower, only we should be able to concealed carry. we are trained on how to shoot 41 bullets and just 20% hits)[/cop]

and you are being a dick, questioning the blue line guys

TXL
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:14:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Langadune:
This article carefully omits what legislation the LEAA is demanding except possibly the retired cops CCW.

This legislation would not protect the men and women (myself included) who choose to protect and serve. It would help those who have retired from that calling.

BTW, I was under the impression the most states already allow retired LEO to CCW



So yer saying this would only benifit retired LEOs if it were to be passed? If so thats even shittier than a bill that would allow LEOs to CCW in all 50 states. See my post above for more on why I think it;s shitty.



That's not what I'm saying. I fully support CCW for all citizens. In KS (many other states as well), LEOs can carry concealed on or off duty. The same statute also allows retired LEOs to carry concealed. My point is, I think the article is backing a pointless argument.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:34:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 10:38:27 AM EST by TomJefferson]

Originally Posted By photoman:
I trying to be a dick or anything but, If we the people can't CCW in all 50 states to protect ourselves(can't even CCW in my own state) than why should cops be allowed to? Are there lives worth more than anyone elses? Is there safety more important than anyone elses?

Not trying to be a dick I just don't like shit like that that gives one group of people preferance over everyone else, especially when it comes to people being able to defend their lives, based soly on the job description. It's not right at all.



Good point my friend but one must learn to walk by taking a first step.

A state that can't trust it's own LEOs to carry concealed will never trust it's citizens.

IMHO, a federal mandate on this issue is a small step towards the ultimate goal of CCW in all states.

Unfortunately, this is a states rights issue as much as anything else and wil most likely be voted down. Personaly I don't see it that way since I beleive many states are infringing the second admendment to begin with.

Tj
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:38:55 AM EST
Y'all won't be so fast to support these guys when they use similar rehtoric to push for renewal, or an even worse AWB. Remember that language exempting LEOs are designed to stroke their egos, and buy their approval which plays well in the public eye.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:41:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Y'all won't be so fast to support these guys when they use similar rehtoric to push for renewal, or an even worse AWB. Remember that language exempting LEOs are designed to stroke their egos, and buy their approval which plays well in the public eye.



Yes I'm afraid you are correct as Imbrio's short guess what will be tacted to it indicated.

Tj
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:42:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Langadune:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Langadune:
This article carefully omits what legislation the LEAA is demanding except possibly the retired cops CCW.

This legislation would not protect the men and women (myself included) who choose to protect and serve. It would help those who have retired from that calling.

BTW, I was under the impression the most states already allow retired LEO to CCW



So yer saying this would only benifit retired LEOs if it were to be passed? If so thats even shittier than a bill that would allow LEOs to CCW in all 50 states. See my post above for more on why I think it;s shitty.



That's not what I'm saying. I fully support CCW for all citizens. In KS (many other states as well), LEOs can carry concealed on or off duty. The same statute also allows retired LEOs to carry concealed. My point is, I think the article is backing a pointless argument.



I was asking if you ment the bill was only for retired LEOs and not all LEOs.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 10:43:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
[cop]You are a 2nd class lower, only we should be able to concealed carry. we are trained on how to shoot 41 bullets and just 20% hits)[/cop]

and you are being a dick, questioning the blue line guys

TXL



I am? Oh fucking well than.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 5:32:59 AM EST
This bill (previously filed each session) has been much discussed for >12 years now. I don't see it ever passing. The Mass Chiefs of Police Assn (and I'm sure many other state "brass" desk-jockey orgs) voted overwhelmingly against it! Their position is that "the local chiefs want to know who is CCW in their communities" and they don't trust someone just because they have a badge.

Well, if they don't trust their own people, do you think that these groups will ever trust the common citizen to CCW? No way in hell! [Oddly enough Mass Gen'l Laws allow any visiting LEO to CCW here without a MA LTC!]

I was a Reserve PO for 17 years and can honestly say that most LEOs that I know (most are not fans of shooting/guns) are not as careful with their guns (safety) nor as "good" at hitting targets as almost any gun club member. Budgets dictate that they can't get free practice ammo, and so they (as a class) don't tend to practice any more than their one or two qualification shoots/year. [I do belong to one gun club with a large LE membership and those folks that practice and enjoy shooting are exceptions to my comments above. However, they are a very small minority of the total LEOs in this area.]

Any step in giving rights (even limited to a small group) would be a step in the right direction, and could later be used to open up those rights to other groups (CCW/LTC holders from any state, etc.) . . . the old "camel's nose under the tent approach that the anti-RKBA folks have effectively used for years. I just don't see it happening.
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 5:40:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
i will ask this yet again. WHY should they be allowed a national CCW and not me? Many LEO's rarely shoot any more than they are required to for qualification. That does not exactly inspire confidence in me.

mike




DITTO.

SG
Link Posted: 5/13/2004 7:13:46 AM EST
The problem with these so-called police organizations is that they do not accurately represent the men and woman in law enforcement. They are politically motivated organizations... that is all. They are not interested in protecting the rights of police officers. They are interested in collecting dues and perpetuating their own necessity. They speak out in favor of laws the due nothing but use up paper. Rarely, if ever, are the men and women in uniform contacted to find out what their views are. These organizations are "police advocates" for one reason: they can play the sympathy angle to further their goals. "Do it for the men and women who protect you."

Top Top