Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/14/2002 9:49:59 PM EDT
I received a letter today from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. In it they ask for my support in passing H.R. 218, "The Community Protection Act" aka "National Concealed Carry for Cops". If passed, it would allow qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officials to carry their firearms in every state, in every community. Do you support the passing of this act? USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:55:41 PM EDT
What about me and the rest of the peons?
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:59:33 PM EDT
Normally I would so no becuase I don't think cops should have more rights then I do. However I think it may help us get a Nation wide CC permit so I will support it.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 9:59:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:01:48 PM EDT
I can understand active LEO's, but why retirees?
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:01:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: I'm with Gunrunner. I do NOT support this bill, unless it includes all people qualified to carry concealed.
View Quote
I have to agree with you on this one , otherwise we'll be creating two seperate classes of gunowners .
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:02:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: I'm with Gunrunner. I do NOT support this bill, unless it includes all people qualified to carry concealed.
View Quote
Sorry. It's only for law enforcement. USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:04:33 PM EDT
I got the same letter. I told them I would support such legislation ONLY IF and WHEN a nationwide CCW bill would be approved for the rest of us. I'm not a cop, but I am combat vet and I have spent a great deal of time teaching cops to shoot. Where's my CCW? FFZ
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:05:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:05:38 PM EDT
I wrote LEAA about HR218 around the end of last year, and posted my letter and their response [url=www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=84252]here[/url] when I received it. You be the judge.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:06:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:21:39 PM EDT
I ABSOLUTELY support it! Slippery slope.... on the other side of the hill.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:25:01 PM EDT
I am all for national CCW. With the current federal climate it will not happen. Just haave it for "officers in good standing" will not get us any closer to a national CCW. I expect the organization that originated this bell will oppose any expansion with the reason that "these are untrained people". Therefore we will be left on our own for this battle. In short - sink this bill.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 10:38:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 10:42:23 PM EDT by LngBchAR15]
I'm sorry but I'm against it. I'm not a cop so maybe my comment is inappropriate. Only federal officers (ATF, disciplinary, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, FAA Air Marshals, etc) should be allowed to carry nationally. They already do and I haven't heard any of them abusing their right to carry. If they are going to pass this thing, each cops should go through stringent background check. Some of my ideas 1) officer must evaluated psychologically by the feds. Can't have history of use of excessive force or any other disciplinary action. 2) officer has no complaint filed against him by the citizens. Once a complaint is filed, his right to carry nationally should be stripped 3) firearm proficiency exam 4) strict guideline of when the firearm can be used and where it can be used 5) they must submit to random urine and blood test 6) right to carry permit must issued. It must be renewed every year and the officer has to go through psych evaluation, drug test, background evaluation, firearm proficiency exam each time he renews the permit.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:00:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LngBchAR15: I'm sorry but I'm against it. I'm not a cop so maybe my comment is inappropriate. Only federal officers (ATF, disciplinary, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, FAA Air Marshals, etc) should be allowed to carry nationally. They already do and I haven't heard any of them abusing their right to carry. If they are going to pass this thing, each cops should go through stringent background check. Some of my ideas 1) officer must evaluated psychologically by the feds. Can't have history of use of excessive force or any other disciplinary action. 2) officer has no complaint filed against him by the citizens. Once a complaint is filed, his right to carry nationally should be stripped 3) firearm proficiency exam 4) strict guideline of when the firearm can be used and where it can be used 5) they must submit to random urine and blood test 6) right to carry permit must issued. It must be renewed every year and the officer has to go through psych evaluation, drug test, background evaluation, firearm proficiency exam each time he renews the permit.
View Quote
Well #2 would disqualify every cop I know. EVERY cop out there has had a complaint filed against him/her at one time or another. As for the rest of your proposal...would you advise random blood and urine test for civilian concealed carry? Police officers go through Academies, so therefore they are trained, they go through psych. exams, background checks, blood and urine tests, they must qualify at the range, etc etc. When I joined the Sheriff's Dept. I had to go through an: I.Q. test. A spelling test. A blood and urine test. A psych. evaluation. A physical exam. A Tuberculosis test. A personality test. I have also spent the last 11 months at a P.O.S.T. certified Academy. So I believe I am a little more qualified than your average "JOE" to carry a weapon. I wish we all could carry nationally, but we can't. So why not let Police, the life that off duty copper saves may be yours.
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:03:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2002 11:08:36 PM EDT by FL_BOY]
NO. and HELL NO for retired OR active, local OR federal. the status does not matter. leo's and politicians should be subject to the same rules as citizen/gov't subjects. this would eliminate a lot of stupid laws. we all carry or 'no' to a special elite class of citizens. this will NOT lead to national CCW, same rules for all might. ok carry for retired batfr's or Feds Bungling Investigation the largest anti-groups and threats to freedom - you are kidding, right?
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:11:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schv:
Originally Posted By LngBchAR15: I'm sorry but I'm against it. I'm not a cop so maybe my comment is inappropriate. Only federal officers (ATF, disciplinary, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, FAA Air Marshals, etc) should be allowed to carry nationally. They already do and I haven't heard any of them abusing their right to carry. If they are going to pass this thing, each cops should go through stringent background check. Some of my ideas 1) officer must evaluated psychologically by the feds. Can't have history of use of excessive force or any other disciplinary action. 2) officer has no complaint filed against him by the citizens. Once a complaint is filed, his right to carry nationally should be stripped 3) firearm proficiency exam 4) strict guideline of when the firearm can be used and where it can be used 5) they must submit to random urine and blood test 6) right to carry permit must issued. It must be renewed every year and the officer has to go through psych evaluation, drug test, background evaluation, firearm proficiency exam each time he renews the permit.
View Quote
Well #2 would disqualify every cop I know. EVERY cop out there has had a complaint filed against him/her at one time or another. As for the rest of your proposal...would you advise random blood and urine test for civilian concealed carry? Police officers go through Academies, so therefore they are trained, they go through psych. exams, background checks, blood and urine tests, they must qualify at the range, etc etc. When I joined the Sheriff's Dept. I had to go through an: I.Q. test. A spelling test. A blood and urine test. A psych. evaluation. A physical exam. A Tuberculosis test. A personality test. I have also spent the last 11 months at a P.O.S.T. certified Academy. So I believe I am a little more qualified than your average "JOE" to carry a weapon. I wish we all could carry nationally, but we can't. So why not let Police, the life that off duty copper saves may be yours.
View Quote
oh yeah, we're soo special -ROFLMAO
Link Posted: 5/14/2002 11:21:49 PM EDT
FL-Boy, I have one question to ask you. Should the president have secret service protection even though you as an average citizen don't?
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 12:07:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schv: FL-Boy, I have one question to ask you. Should the president have secret service protection even though you as an average citizen don't?
View Quote
Even better, do you consider the President to be on the same level as your average law enforcement officer? I think you're comparing apples to oranges. USPC40 [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/line.gif[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/USPC40/alabamaflag.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 12:22:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 12:35:13 AM EDT by schv]
USPC-40, FL-Boy was saying he didn't want two groups of rights. In his line of thinking then everyone should have a limo and Secret Service protection or the President should not either. Are you guys saying that a police car with activated lights and siren enroute to an emergency should have to obey all traffic laws? My point is, if you stay inside the law, how are you going to catch someone who has stepped outside of it?
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 1:20:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schv:
Originally Posted By LngBchAR15: I'm sorry but I'm against it. I'm not a cop so maybe my comment is inappropriate. Only federal officers (ATF, disciplinary, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, FAA Air Marshals, etc) should be allowed to carry nationally. They already do and I haven't heard any of them abusing their right to carry. If they are going to pass this thing, each cops should go through stringent background check. Some of my ideas 1) officer must evaluated psychologically by the feds. Can't have history of use of excessive force or any other disciplinary action. 2) officer has no complaint filed against him by the citizens. Once a complaint is filed, his right to carry nationally should be stripped 3) firearm proficiency exam 4) strict guideline of when the firearm can be used and where it can be used 5) they must submit to random urine and blood test 6) right to carry permit must issued. It must be renewed every year and the officer has to go through psych evaluation, drug test, background evaluation, firearm proficiency exam each time he renews the permit.
View Quote
Well #2 would disqualify every cop I know. EVERY cop out there has had a complaint filed against him/her at one time or another. As for the rest of your proposal...would you advise random blood and urine test for civilian concealed carry? Police officers go through Academies, so therefore they are trained, they go through psych. exams, background checks, blood and urine tests, they must qualify at the range, etc etc. When I joined the Sheriff's Dept. I had to go through an: I.Q. test. A spelling test. A blood and urine test. A psych. evaluation. A physical exam. A Tuberculosis test. A personality test. I have also spent the last 11 months at a P.O.S.T. certified Academy. So I believe I am a little more qualified than your average "JOE" to carry a weapon. I wish we all could carry nationally, but we can't. So why not let Police, the life that off duty copper saves may be yours.
View Quote
Schv, I am not trying to offend you BUT, how are you as a non "average JOE" more qualified to carry a weapon because you had a spelling and an "IQ" test????Maybe an "average JOE" has had a little training that goes beyond a "personality" check?! Maybe, just maybe, the average "JOE" has been to a Thunder Ranch,Front Site, HK,LFI,.....etc. Maybe a retired Good Guy is vacationing in a different state from where he lives. Maybe Good Guy might save YOUR LIFE!! ....No, guess Good Guy can't help you......Good Guy can't cross certain state lines because that would be ILLEGAL. Good Guy missed the last few questions on the Sheriff's "personality" and "spelling" test. Get a CLUE man............[:(!]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 2:30:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 2:38:35 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
I got one of those letters myself yesterday too and voted [b]yes[/b]. While I'm not entirely in agreement with giving others a right which I myself do not possess, I do believe that if we support them now they will support us later. This belief is based on discussions I have had with those in law enforcement in my area and they as a rule have been believers in the CCW holders abilities to act responsibly. Mike
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 3:06:54 AM EDT
I think this will do more harm than good to our fight for CCW. It's a compromise, they don't want to give us CCW but since there is a lot of outpouring of support for it, they trying to throw us a bone - a bone with no meat on it - to prevent us winning CCW. Plus they can then tout that CCW has no effect, because the 175,000 members of LE nationwide (only a percentage of which will carry) is a drop in the pond, or the great lakes rather. I am opposed not only for that reason but because of the aforementioned reasons of creating two classes of rights - something which is strictly forbidden in this country. LEO's and the various justice departments in this counrty have completely forgotten that LEO's are CIVILLIANS. They are the same as you and I 100% The only difference is that they are paid to attend full time to duties that are incumbant upon ALL of us. They are not a seperate class, they just think they are. I would also note, though not necessarily as a reason for objection, that I have witnessed more unsafe behavior and lack of firearms knowledge from police officers than I ever have from average citizens. Mike
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 3:44:29 AM EDT
This issue is one which keeps returning. Sadly, it appears from reading this thread, that many non LEO members here wish to actively oppose HR218 and would vote against a bill federally extending gun rights and promoting law enforcement. Many because of an “if not me than nobody else” attitude. I believe this is short sighted and will end up decreasing the likelihood that a civilian version of the bill will ever be passed. It is specifically this type of attitude, and internecine infighting which diminishes our collective strength and defeats our joint interests as gun enthusiasts - cop or non-cop. In fact privileges afforded to the police are often extended to the citizenry. The simple fact is: let the general public get used to the idea that individuals from other states can legally carry in their borders (a tall order in the Northeast). What group would most logically carry this torch and thereby ease the concerns of the gun squeamish public than LEO’s who are (for the sake of argument) ostensibly trained, screened and trusted with firearms. Surely you must agree that there will be less objections by the general public to this extension of firearm privileges than an extension to pvt CCW holders. After an interim period, the greatest justification of a civilian version of HR218 will be the presumed lack of incidents associated with the passage of HR218. History shows that gun rights (or really any political paradigm) either expand or recede incrementally. In the current climate they have been growing gradually. This bill is simply a step in the right direction....a federal expansion and the potential creation of federal carry privileges/rights which pre-empt state law. Cops are predominantly pro-gun and allies to the pro-RKBA citizenry. This is a fracture between RKBA proponents and vast majority Pro-gun LEOs who view this anti HR218 stance as a betrayal by their erstwhile brethren. As a result of this stance, I think the actions in opposition to HR218 by those pro-RKBA will engender animosity, polarization and foster further divisions and ultimately a diminishment of LEO support for RKBA. Something that no true RKBA proponent should advocate, and something which falls into the hands of the anti-gunners: the result of the division: no HR218, no Fed CCW bill either and the potential for the creation of two separate and politically weaker groups weighted down by infighting. Look to the future, if the RKBA groups oppose us what do you think the response by many LEOs will be when it your case up for vote? I would imagine too many will vote against using rationale and arguments similar to those espoused by your position. I would hope that those of you who have not made up your minds about this bill try and take an objective long-term approach to the bill’s potential to all holders of CCWs and support its passage. Consider that if HR218 which extends there rights solely to LEO’s has already suffered such difficulty, what realistic chance do you see for such a bill which addresses pvt ccws only.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 4:01:53 AM EDT
All gun control laws will not be repealed in one fell swoop. we have to move towards it, one small step at a time. This would be a small step towards national ccw.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 4:08:46 AM EDT
When I joined the Sheriff's Dept. I had to go through an: I.Q. test. A spelling test. A blood and urine test. A psych. evaluation. A physical exam. A Tuberculosis test. A personality test. I have also spent the last 11 months at a P.O.S.T. certified Academy. So I believe I am a little more qualified than your average "JOE" to carry a weapon. I wish we all could carry nationally, but we can't. So why not let Police, the life that off duty copper saves may be yours. [/quote] ******* Unfortunately these comments seem to be quite common in law enforcement circles. IOW they are special and more qualified than us lowly peons. Some observations: 1.The procedure for average citizens to obtain a NY State pistol permit in Long Island is intense and time consuming. There is a MUCH higher rate of Police or other LEA abusing their authority ( IN New York)and misusing their firearms (either on duty or off duty) than that compared to the average citizen who owns a pistol permit. This is one of those dirty little secrets that most LEA don't like hearing! On several occasions I've witnessed LEA folks practicing at my local pistol range to prepare for their qualifications. IN almost every instance they were PATHETIC in obtaining a tight grouping. I could have outperformed every one of them! BUt I'm just a lowly peon in their eyes, right? BTW, some of us regular folks have taken safety training courses, SAFS (small arms firing school) training and do participate in High Power Rifle competitions. I would venture to say that most of us New Yorkers who have a pistol license have been investigated quite well by the FBI, the NY STate Police, local County Police, the NY State dept of Mental Hygiene, Motor vehicle history, character references, ad nauseum, etc.. Yet you wouldn't believe how many of these LE scumbags think that WE shouldn't be allowed to protect ourselvers and our families outside of our own homes. Up theirs! As far as I'm concerned it either "All or none"! John
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 4:14:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 4:16:22 AM EDT by Sukebe]
I'll chime in on this one. I've been a cop for 14 years. I do not support national concealed carry for cops retired or otherwise. Most people have no idea how many special police and special deputy commissions exist in this country. Sheriffs Offices and and small towns give them out as political pay backs. These people are legally certified LEO's but never work in an LEO capacity. I don't want them to receive special status locally let alone nation wide. Retirees? I don't think so. While the national average life expectancy for a cop after retirement is 8 years, some blow the curve. We have a few retirees that are in their late 80's and have become a little feeble minded. They shouldn't be driving so I don't think they are going to help keep any of us safer. I see this measure as a move albeit a small one, towards a national police force. In my opinion that is a bad idea. Further, it is a fact that Cops already enjoy special status when it comes to firearms since after all we are charged with suppressing crime and enforcing the laws of the land. I don't see the need to expand on that status. I truly believe that this country would be safer if all qualified citizens were permitted national concealed carry. That's right, I said qualified citizens. Even cops have to meet some standard before we are allowed to carry a firearm. It's a plain fact that some people while they shouldn't be barred from owning firearms, they shouldn't be carrying them around in public. Just like some people shouldn't drive or work with children or operate nuclear reactors.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 5:49:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mortech:
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: I'm with Gunrunner. I do NOT support this bill, unless it includes all people qualified to carry concealed.
View Quote
I have to agree with you on this one , otherwise we'll be creating two seperate classes of gunowners .
View Quote
Agreed.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 6:20:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 6:26:04 AM EDT by The_Beer_Slayer]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 6:23:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Robertesq1: In fact privileges afforded to the police are often extended to the citizenry.
View Quote
Can you give us some examples, please? Also, as noted in the thread I linked on the first page, in their response letter LEAA dodged the specific question I asked about whether they would in fact lobby for universal non-LEO nationwide CCW once HR218 is passed.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 6:29:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 7:10:57 AM EDT
[size=6][red]HELL NO!!![/red][/size=6] [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/EricE%2Fnwoblack13%5Fsmall%2Egif[/img]
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 7:18:09 AM EDT
Either we all have the right to protect our own lives and the lives of our families and neighbors or none of us should (and that idea should be unacceptable to all of us)..the idea of two or more classes of citizens unequal under the same laws is not America...I dont know what it is...but it isnt America or at least not the one my father and his father and I fought for.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 7:18:39 AM EDT
Let's see...Where is the bill for active duty military?? We are required to maintain proficiency with out TO weapon, and must qualify every year. Plus we had weapon handeling literally drilled into our heads in bootcamp. But there is no provision for this. That's a BIG NO for this bill. Cops arn't special. Hell a majority of cops in the big cities have never handled a firearm until the acadamy any way, and in places like NYC and Chicago, people can't have handguns anyway, so why in goodness sakes's should a cop need one. After all, gun laws WORK!!!
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 7:32:58 AM EDT
SOrry, but when I see someone like SCHV make the statement "My point is, if you stay inside the law, how are you going to catch someone who has stepped outside of it?" I start to get a bad feeling about only LEO's carrying guns nationwide. As for the "We support them, then they support us" theory, I don't believe it. I think that some would, but I know many cops who wouldn't.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 8:08:18 AM EDT
I would vote no on giving a class of citizens more rights than another class of citizens. I would vote this even if I was an LEO. We gun owners need to be fighting for all of our rights, not the rights of LEs. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately."
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 8:58:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 9:28:53 AM EDT
keepandbeararms.com has a great wealth of information relating to this issue. My boy Angel Shamaya did an excellent job of citing clear and cogent reasons why a Nat'l CCW for cops only would *not* lead to the same for the rest of us lowly schmucks. It's a terrible idea. Neal Knox thinks so too. Good enough for me to come out against it. Shouldn't be any gun laws at all, much less a National CCW that is revocable at any time. We already have National CCW, it just isn't being enforced--it's called the 2nd Amendment. Here's why: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer17.html[/url] "The Delusion of Limited Government"
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 6:07:32 PM EDT
Jarhead_22 Examples? The following had been in my mind. Mace was illegal in my area (while PD’s were exempted non authorized it). When it eventually became authorized for the PD’s they later made provisions for civilian possession. Maybe not an exact microcosm, but tending to support this position and, in my view not unusual occurances. To the other posters: I know my position is unpopular but, given the simple fact is majority of Americans favor greater gun control. The fact that so many CCW referendums have been successful only underscores my contention that when pro gunners stick together, they form a powerful force, better organized and willing to fund or otherwise support this political issue against a majority who are not. If you recognize that the majority of LEOs are allies and have supported state CCW bills and will support national carry privileges by voting in your favor, then it is contradictory to then concomitantly contend we wish to shut the door in your face. More significantly demonizing HR218 furthers the fracture between RKBA proponents and vast majority Pro-gun LEOs. As a result, I think the actions in opposition to HR218 by those pro-RKBA will engender animosity, polarization and foster further divisions. Something that no true RKBA proponent should advocate, and something which falls into the hands of the anti-gunners: the potential for the creation of two separate and politically weaker groups weighted down by infighting. I suggest a simple analysis: the antis vehamently oppose this bill. You can be sure that the vast mafority of us LEOs (I'm retired now), whether this bill passes or not will support a pvt ccw bill. Not only do we share the love of our hobby and our beliefs in RKBA, but most street cops see CCW holders as the good guys who have been backgrounded and are Law abiding and most likely to come to our aid when things get ugly. It saddens me to see some of the hostility directed towards us cops. Despite public perception and media portrayal, the overwhelming majority of LEOs support pro-gun initiatives. Remember we are not ruffled by the carrying of weapons as a rule (as are most antis), especially when it is by individuals licenced and regulated as are we.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 6:14:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wolfpack:
Originally Posted By Gloftoe: I'm with Gunrunner. I do NOT support this bill, unless it includes all people qualified to carry concealed.
View Quote
Same here
View Quote
I agree. Civilians are as qualified if not more qualified to safely carry and fire concealed weapons. No offense to LEOs.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 7:05:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 7:07:44 PM EDT by 58sniper]
Originally Posted By LngBchAR15: I'm sorry but I'm against it. I'm not a cop so maybe my comment is inappropriate. Only federal officers (ATF, disciplinary, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, FAA Air Marshals, etc) should be allowed to carry nationally. They already do and I haven't heard any of them abusing their right to carry. If they are going to pass this thing, each cops should go through stringent background check. Some of my ideas 1) officer must evaluated psychologically by the feds. Can't have history of use of excessive force or any other disciplinary action. 2) officer has no complaint filed against him by the citizens. Once a complaint is filed, his right to carry nationally should be stripped 3) firearm proficiency exam 4) strict guideline of when the firearm can be used and where it can be used 5) they must submit to random urine and blood test 6) right to carry permit must issued. It must be renewed every year and the officer has to go through psych evaluation, drug test, background evaluation, firearm proficiency exam each time he renews the permit.
View Quote
So, you're against it. Or you want your taxes to go up to pay for the yearly requirements you list? You're not a cop, and that's why you don't understand one thing: As soon as you arrest some SOB in a bar fight, SOMEONE (who may or may not have even BEEN at the fight) will file a complaint to get some "easy money". Or some wife you complains because you took her abusive husband to jail after he beat the hell out of her (but she "loves" him). This isn't an "all or nothing" issue. First, let the PO's have them with this bill. And then work on the civilian aspect of it. You'll NEVER get a nationwide civilian CCW law if LEOs can't carry nationwide. Remember, most jurisdictions don't require an LEO to have a CCW.
Link Posted: 5/15/2002 7:20:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/15/2002 7:41:02 PM EDT by LngBchAR15]
Originally Posted By 58sniper:
Originally Posted By LngBchAR15: I'm sorry but I'm against it. I'm not a cop so maybe my comment is inappropriate. Only federal officers (ATF, disciplinary, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, FAA Air Marshals, etc) should be allowed to carry nationally. They already do and I haven't heard any of them abusing their right to carry. If they are going to pass this thing, each cops should go through stringent background check. Some of my ideas 1) officer must evaluated psychologically by the feds. Can't have history of use of excessive force or any other disciplinary action. 2) officer has no complaint filed against him by the citizens. Once a complaint is filed, his right to carry nationally should be stripped 3) firearm proficiency exam 4) strict guideline of when the firearm can be used and where it can be used 5) they must submit to random urine and blood test 6) right to carry permit must issued. It must be renewed every year and the officer has to go through psych evaluation, drug test, background evaluation, firearm proficiency exam each time he renews the permit.
View Quote
So, you're against it. Or you want your taxes to go up to pay for the yearly requirements you list? You're not a cop, and that's why you don't understand one thing: As soon as you arrest some SOB in a bar fight, SOMEONE (who may or may not have even BEEN at the fight) will file a complaint to get some "easy money". Or some wife you complains because you took her abusive husband to jail after he beat the hell out of her (but she "loves" him). This isn't an "all or nothing" issue. First, let the PO's have them with this bill. And then work on the civilian aspect of it. You'll NEVER get a nationwide civilian CCW law if LEOs can't carry nationwide. Remember, most jurisdictions don't require an LEO to have a CCW.
View Quote
I don't understand your logic. You think once the cops get national CCW, rest of us will get CCW in the future? Cops don't want people carrying guns! As for the complaints filed against them, if further investigations reveal that accusations/complaints were bogus then they shouldn't count. If one officer has so many complaints filed against him and it shows a pattern (for example, series of use of excessive force complaints). Then you are saying all the bad guys are making stuff up? I seriously doubt that. Also how do you account for level of training differences. I'm sure there are police officers who do nothing but eat donuts and write speeding and parking tickets all day long. Others, such as SWAT member who get the best training out there. Also, departments with huge budget can train more often while smaller departments can only train less frequently. Maybe start by only allowing state troopers, state highway patrols, and state police carry nationally. If it works out, move down to county sheriffs and eventually down to city cops. I think State of California is allowing CHP officers to fly on in-state flights with loaded gun since 9-11 attack.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 1:15:11 PM EDT
I think your position diminishes the unique dangers that LEO confront while off-duty. We risk actions which give rise to retaliation on a daily basis. I have run into perps I have arrested but more concerning, ones that I didn’t recognize but who recognized me. I do not believe it is selfish proposition to allow extended protections to the persons who place themselves between you and the bad guys. If you don’t like the principles don’t vote yea but it is, well, not generous or self-serving, to vote nay. Go here for some further authority that us LEOs predominantly support Civ Nat Carry http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture....L20011130c.html Survey: Top Cops Favor Concealed Carry Laws By Jim Burns CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer November 30, 2001 (CNSNews.com) - A survey released Friday by the National Association of Chiefs of Police finds that over 60 percent of the nation's police chiefs and sheriffs favor a national system allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 1:47:56 PM EDT
Well, it must not be much of an issue, because Chicago and NYC don't allow all cops to carry off duty. If you don't want to be in that position, don't be a cop, or do like a lot of people do, carry anyway. The cops will usually take care of their own anyway.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 2:15:59 PM EDT
I don't know about Chicago but I assure you that NYC cops carry off duty and when they retire. Relying on courtesy is not wise when there exists the potential for felony charges and permanent loss of carry privileges. Also we LE types tend to obey the law even when we don't like it/them.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 2:17:17 PM EDT
This is crap, why are normal people treated as second class citizens when it comes to concealed carry? This law would just enforce a us and them mentality.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 2:25:35 PM EDT
Well actually, an leo wishing to carry out of state to a state which recogises his or her state's CCW must get a CCW licence. No state that I know of recognizes off duty leo out of state carry privleges
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 11:27:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Robertesq1: Well actually, an leo wishing to carry out of state to a state which recogises his or her state's CCW must get a CCW licence. No state that I know of recognizes off duty leo out of state carry privleges
View Quote
According to information I have researched, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington, and Wisconsin allow off duty LEO's to carry concealed. I am new to this web site and am very suprised at the animosity members here show towards law enforcement. I do not personally know a single cop who is anti 2nd ammendment or CCW. And I know a hell of a lot of them. It seems that the same media that is bs'ing the rest of the country about gun control has been just as successful in making a lot of you believe that LEO's are anti gun as well. Personally, I don't think that HR218 will pass until there is some sort of a national firearms qualification course adopted by all 50 states. If they do this and allow LEO's to conceal carry then I think that it would open the doors for every ccw holder. Right now, the big hold up with reciprocity between CCW states is that they don't all maintain the same standards. A national standard would make this moot. I am a citizen and I am also a cop. I strongly support the 2nd ammendment. I also firmly support a "shall issue" policy on CCW permits for all law abiding U.S. citizens nationwide. We (I say we, because we are ALL in this together in the long run)need to realize that the national CCW movement needs to start getting some more momentum and HR218 could very likely be it. Or maybe not, but I don't see where there is there anything to lose if it happens.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:09:06 PM EDT
trippletap: First let me welcome you here. Second, yes I guess I have gotten used to the mistrust SOME of members here have for LEOs, you know sadly most civ/LEO contacts are car stops and often do not generate good will. Hopefully, at the very least, these forums let pro gunners be aware that 98% of LEOs are pro Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA). Oh and thanks for the info about states allowing off duty carry (probably doesn't affect me anyway - I'm retired now)
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:16:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2002 12:17:25 PM EDT by rocko]
I absolutely do not support this. I don't see this as a step to national CCW, as most of the antis want guns in the hands of military and law enforcement. I think it is the more conservative folk (who are traditionally pro-gun) who are actually against this as they do not want to create two classes of citizens, each with different rights. IMHO, this will do nothing but widen the divide you folks are commenting on here between LEO's and normal civilians. It will do nothing but alienate LEOs to most people and cause animosity in the gun community and promote an "us vs. them" mentality. The question is, is that this goal of this? Divide and conquer? Rocko
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 12:24:32 PM EDT
They need a law for that? (If it¡¦s for personal protection no law is required) But if they are carrying to serve in the capacity of a free peace officer. I hope they still need to pass qualification quarterly or annually.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top