Yes, they are better trained how to react under stress than the unwashed masses.
[url]http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/11/03/loc_officer_charged_in.html[/url]

[url]http://www.wkyc.com/news/morelocal/cleveland/020520swatresign.asp[/url]

And no mandatory prison sentence for using a gun in the commission of a felony.

I am against this, for the reasons cited before and others.

This is not a stepping stone to nationwide CC for everyone, it is a way to take a group of voters (LEO and retired) and make them less likely to push for it. Thats why the retired part is in there, so any LEO who plans on a career in LE doesn't have to worry about it for life. I got mine, I'm not worried about yours.

In my home state there are two classes of CC, cops and others. Others can not carry in banks, anyplace that serves alcohol, even nice restraunts if your not drinking, school property (even driving on to pick up your kid) and government buildings. Cops carry wherever they damm well please. It is stupid, my friend is a LEO and he can carry when we go to Applebees and I can't.

As far as the "I may need it cause someone may have a grudge against me", that is pure bullcrap when it comes to nationwide CCW. The odds of you running into somebody who is pissed cause you arrested them when you are 500 miles from home in another state is no greater than my odds of running into a violent criminal who means harm for me. That arguement may carry a little wieght within 20-30 miles of the area you work, but not elsewhere. And at the same time when I am in my hometown many folks know I work in a business that handles lots of cash, making me a more likely target as well. Hmmm.

Bottom line, this will go further toward defining the 3 class gun owner system we have, LE, retired LE, and us.

LE, can get AW with letterhead, can get post 94 hi caps with letterhead, can usually carry off duty in home state. In Kali got a special exemption on AW registraion for PRIVATLEY OWNED AW's.

Retired LE, Can have post 94 AW's and mags gifted to them on retirement and own legally, in some states can CC. You can buy a LE only weapon on letterhead, transfer it to teh department the day before you retire, have them gist it to you on retirement, and have it 100% legal.

And us, and you know what we have to do. Funny thing is, if you declared that any LEO who wanted to carry outside 100 miles of his/her jurisdiction needed to follow the same requirments as the rest of us, the pressure to make the laws easier for the rest of us would be huge. But sine the LEO's have it easier when it comes to CC, they don't push for it.

My idea, pass a law that says any LEO that wants to carry off duty can only do so within 50 miles of thier workplace. Outside that, same laws as Joe public. That will fix the "I run into guys I arrest arguement" as you are most likely to run into them where you work or nearby. Then, sit back and watch how much quicker we get nationwide CCW for all, as then the cops and all the LE organizations realize they are in the same boat and if they want it they have to really, truly support it for us.... not just pay lip service.

Interesting theory.

If thats the reason, then in my state the you must figure that I have enough training to handle the situation at the mall, but not if I walk into the Applebees in the mall?  I can handle the situation at wal-mart, but not at the bank.

I can handle the situation 26 miles from my house, but not 27 after I cross the TN line according to your above theory. Interesting logic indeed.

No I would not support this bill.  I already think there is too much division between LEOs and "civilians" (LEOs forget they are civilians too) in the eyes of the law.  I will not support any legislation that further supports the creation of seperate classes of citizens.

And honestly from my personal experience with LEOs, they are far more undertrained and dangerous than the "average joe" who carries a firearm for his protection.  To the LEO, its a tool as part of his job, generally he doesn't care about guns, he doesn't want to learn, and he doesn't want to invest his time and money into improving his skill at arms.  There are exceptions of course, but they are in the minority.
 
The average joe that carries a firearm has made a conscious effort to prepare himself for deadly situations, he educates himself, he usually practices, and invests money in classes and books to increase his knowledge and skill.  I'd much rather call on my fellow shooters (3-gun, IPSC, IDPA) to save my ass in a deadly situation, than any LE Agency.

CCW permits should already be recognized by all 50 states under the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution...the only reason they aren't is failure of enforcement of this clause on the part of the courts.

trippletap,

It's probably best to keep the negative experiences (both personally and working in the industry) I have had with LEOs to myself I don't really want to get into a flame war.

Perhaps my perspective is different, because I live in AZ and gun ownership is more socially acceptable here.  People that own guns generally shoot them.  The CCW course requirements here are 16 hours of classroom instruction with a marksmanship qualification.  The people I shoot and train with, are the ones that Police Departments hire to train them, so perhaps I'm not as exposed to the "average Joe" as much as I had thought. I think it's possible the average Joe, and average LEO can vary from state to state too.  I'd like to see anyone that carries a gun on a daily basis, whether just in their car or on their person to train regularly.  You'd think they'd want to because their life potentially depends upon it.

There are a lot of states rights issues involved in this sort of discussion, and that complicates things, in some ways Shall-Issue national CCW would be good, in other ways it would not. I would support a National CCW bill so long as it was available to everyone on a case by case basis. There are LEOs that have a real need to carry nationwide, such as those that work high profile cases.  

There are other people that have a real need to carry nationwide such as FFL holders.  As a Title II manufacturer, we often transport full-autos between states for industry functions and product demos to LE Agencies.  If we were to lose 20 full autos and 10 cases of ammo in route to an LE demonstration, with the potential of more terrorism, it could be an honest to god threat to national security.  If our implements of war license is approved, the potential for tragedy if we lost control of such items would increase dramatically.  Even just for the average dealer transporting guns state to state for gun shows, there is a real need to carry…a truck full of guns could be a very appealing target for criminals.

Guy #1 is on vacation, and Guy #2 is as well.

Guy #1 is a cop, guy #2 is not.


Both get attacked.


If this law was passed, it would be saying that Guy #1's life is more deserving of the right to self defense than guy #2's. Does working in law enforcement really make his life more worthy of being defended than mine? The sponsors of thsi bill seem to think so, or else it would be national reciprocity for CCW holders and LE.


Please justify for me how, when on vacation, a law enforcment officer is more deserving of the right to self defense than a banker, doctor, janitor, or soldier. I'm looking foward to your responses. This bill will not lead to enhanced CCW nationwide for the rest of us, no more than the exemptions in Kali's AW ban for LE have lead to exceptions for everyone else, so don't give me that response.

For one, guy 2 made the choice to work when he knew that his department required him to not hold a CCW (In my area I know lots of cops who hold ccw permits, in fact the majority do, so it's not a nationwide thing it appears), as opposed to the rest of us who never got to make a choice, the government tells us we cannot defend ourselves no matter what we do unless we risk arrest.

For another, why not fight the stupid departmental policies requiring you to give up your CCW??????? Instead of pushing federal legislation your unions could make it a contract issue, and most likely have much better success. Is that not what unions are for???? Why not fight the stupid policies and bring the ones that cannot carry up to the same level that everyone is at instead of trying to elevate LEO's to some superior status. If your being denied your rights by your employer, thats between you and your employer, and you choose to work there so don't cry about it.

The fact that the police unions want to bypass the CCW process for thier employees instead of engaging in contract talks to allow the few that are denied the proccess to be able to follow the same rules as the rest of us says alot.

Not ingenious, just common sense
And thats a problem?
Your problem is at the local level, so find the solution there. If the money that is being thrown at this at a national level was spent fighting this at the local level in the few departments taht have this policy, it could be done. Or is the union more worried about 2 extra vacation days? If it's that big of a deal, find employment at a place without that rule. You choose to work there. You choose to give up your shot at a CCW when you do. Many departments don't have that rule.
They also oppose most other CC laws, so no suprise there.
Sure I support your RKBA, in 100% the same way that I support everyone elses. Your support is fine, and welcome, and we are thankful for it. But it should be because it is your RKBA as well, and not want privleges above and beyond the rest. If a bill was pending that would prohibit deprtments from preventing officers from getting CCW, I would support it 100%. But is that not good enough? Why should I support anyone getting increased freedoms when it is restricted to a certain group. What if it was nationwide CCW for only white guys, or truck drivers, or doctors. It would seem pretty stupid to single out a certain group then, wouldn't it. And yes, the rights of police officers SHOULD be tethered to mine.... give me one reason why you deserve more?

BTW, read your above statement, then think about why some of us feel that a 2 class system of gun owners has been created. You pretty much imply it in your wording yourself.
You have my support 100% up until the point where you start wanting rights above and beyond everyone else, then I become 100% opposed to it. Don't play the poor little cop nobody supports us when you don't get your "special privleges", maybe when you get less than the public it is called for, but just because we don't think you desrve more does not mean we don't support you.

I support law enforcment having exactly the same rights as the general public 100%. Then we fight side by side.

Start a movement to restrict deprtments from prohibiting officers from holding CCW's and I will be behind it 100%, then deal with the rest of the laws just like everyone has to.

BTW, you still haven't told me why a cop on vacation is more deserving of the right to defend his/her self than I am. Thats what this movement seems to imply, and certainly what it would create... one class with the ability to defend themselves, one class that only could at risk of arrest (by the first class no less).