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.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 1/7/2002 3:45:52 PM EDT
HR 218 would exempt current and former police officers from state concealed carry laws. I was a little conflicted about it, so I wrote to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the group who drafted the legislation, and asked them for more information: The Law Enforcement Alliance of America 7700 Leesburg Pike Suite 421 Falls Church VA 22043 Ladies and Gentlemen: I’m writing today to request information on LEAA and HR 218. I have seen some debate on HR 218 centering on the notion that it would create a privileged class of citizen that enjoys rights the rest do not. I’m on the fence, and would like to be convinced of your position so my letter to my Representative is right on the issues. Does LEAA see HR 218 as a stepping-stone to national CCW reciprocity for all Americans who hold a concealed carry permit? Will LEAA continue to lobby for legislation that will make this possible once current and retired police officers enjoy this right? I am a former active duty Marine, and have many friends in local, state and federal law enforcement. I was proud to shake Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s hand at my best friend’s academy graduation. I am generally in favor of anything that makes a police officer’s job easier, as long as it is not in opposition to the Constitution, and I would appreciate any information you could provide that might allay my fears. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, XXXXXX XXXXXXX I got their response in the mail today. I'll type it in as a reply to this post.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:01:47 PM EDT
Dear Mr. XXXXXX, I would like to thank you for your letter concerning HR 218 and I hope the following explanation will give you a better understanding of LEAA's priorities. As you know, HR 218 will allow for qualified off-duty officers in good standing to carry their firearms nationwide. This LEAA-drafted legislation sponsored by Rep. Duke Cunningham has garnered much support throughout its years in Congress and received 86% of congressional support when it was added as an amendment to the failed Juvenile Justice bill in 1999. 372 members of Congress voted for this life-saving legislation which confirms that there is strong support and with help from our nation's leaders, HR 218 could be enacted in the not-too-distant future. Currently the majority of the members in the US House of Representatives have co-sponsored HR 218. LEAA is the nation's largest coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens working together to make America safer. With that in mind it is important to point out that LEAA is in no way trying to place current and former police officers in a separate status, above others. In fact, retired officers are regular citizens much the same as those who have never been in law enforcement. Thus LEAA believes that passing HR 218 will initiate the first step in passing legislation that will allow national reciprocity for all permit holders. All legislation protecting and supporting the Second Amendment is important to LEAA. By pushing HR 218 however, LEAA's position is that, if passed, the law will allow more than one million people to carry firearms that would not have been otherwise authorized to do so. It is important to note that HR 218 does not include any "bureaucratic red tape," and that once it is signed into law, more than a million people will have increased chance for self-defense. This is a great first step. Further, once the deterrent effects of HR 218 are seen LEAA experts believe that many anti-self-defense legislators should see the wisdom in expanding coverage of the law. I hope this letter helps in some way. From the points you make in your letter I have no reason to think you don't have all the best qualifications and experience to be able to carry your firearm across state lines. I hope you understand that LEAA is doing everything possible in the fight to make it legally acceptable for you to be able to defend yourself and your family at all times. Sincerely, Laura Griffith Federal Director
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:04:11 PM EDT
So what do you think, aside from the naive hope that "LEAA experts believe that many anti-self-defense legislators should see the wisdom in expanding coverage of the law."????????
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:09:15 PM EDT
Before I comment on by position post pictures of Laura Griffith.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:11:49 PM EDT
Oh, and please spare me the "I hate cops" "They're all dicks" "Just a bunch of armed tax collectors" rhetoric. I'm looking for information, not windy verbiage to no purpose.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:27:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2002 4:30:13 PM EDT by Sean_Burke]
Jarhead: I would be against it, for the simple reason that it allows LEOs (current and former) to carry across state lines, a privilege denied the rest of the population. If the legislation introduced by Rep Cunningham (a stand-up man, BTW, if ever there was one; first jet ace with the USN, Rep. from San Diego) said that "current and former LEOs are granted concealed carry in their home states, and all CCW permit holders are allowed reciprocity in other states", then I'd be all for it. As it stands, most legislators would say, "we just added another million CCW nationwide; that's enough for now", and that doesn't get you or I any recognition. If they wanted persons familiar with firearms, with a demonstrated facility for honorable public service, why not extend automatic CCW to all honorably discharged military? What qualities have former LEOs shown that is lacking in ex-military? I don't think it is a "foot in the door". If this passed, all you'd head is the door slamming shut ahead of you.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:30:54 PM EDT
Well, I don't hate cops, nor do I intend to bash them, so here's my .02 before taxes.... 1. I generally oppose any legislation that furthers the gulf of difference between civilians and Law Enforcement Officers with regards to 'privelages and powers' while NOT on duty. This bill is precisely that. To me it is an outright message that 'an off duty or retired law enforcement officer has more worth/ is more responsible/is more trustworthy than a mere citizen'. 2. I respect the job of Law Enforcement, and while I don't agree with every instance, there are CERTAIN TIMES when LEO's will require the use of hardware that is currently restricted to civilians. However, with consideration to being off duty....I have yet to be explained exactly why, exactly what magic aura exists that would necessitate LEO's to IGNORE FEDERAL AND STATE LAW! 3. While I do not intend to disrespect the LEAA, as they are the only organization to represent both LEO's and citizens (as well as the REAL positions of the LEO community, not the politicians), if they truly believe that this might be a stepping stone to national reciprocity, they have simply lost touch with reality. The only reason this bill is receiving support is because the word LEO is written all over it. "...that many anti-self-defense legislators should see the wisdom in expanding coverage of the law"....bovine fecal material. Anyone show me when Fienstein, Boxer, Schumer, Lautenberg, or ANY of the gun grabbers voted to EXPAND the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. They trust cops....not serfs. 4. The practice of 'badge=CCW' has been in existence for quite some time, and while not everywhere it is fairly common, and as I understand fairly against the law. Of course, when something is against the law and normal people do it, does Congress merely say 'very well, make it legal'? I don't wish to say it excuses those who violate the law, but in a sense it does. 5. With regards to the 'stepping stone'....I have asked and have yet to receive a reply....which of any of the prospective firearms laws that have provided exemptions for LEO's EVER been rescinded, or have those exemptions extended to the public at large? High cap mags? Import firearms? Assault weapons? 6. "With that in mind it is important to point out that LEAA is in no way trying to place current and former police officers in a separate status, above others. In fact, retired officers are regular citizens much the same as those who have never been in law enforcement. Thus LEAA believes that passing HR 218 will initiate the first step in passing legislation that will allow national reciprocity for all permit holders." Rather contradictory in my opinion. You don't want to place LEO's 'above others', and retired officers are regular citizens, but yet that is EXACTLY what this legislation does. I have a hard time believing this 'intention' does not exist. And if retired LEO's are regular citizens, WHY THE HELL DO YOU SAY THEY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO IGNORE THE LAW? That's generally my beef. I've been flamed like hell for it, but I don't much care. I have a respect for police officers and their job...but well ALL have lives to protect...and we all bleed, and we all die.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:20:31 PM EDT
Wow! Hard-case, right on the money with that post! I would further add that ex-military people deserve no extra rights or special privileges either. I can shoot better than 90% of the people who have served in the military or are currently serving. Don't I deserve a special status as well? Either the law applies to everyone equally or it applies to no one, having special classes of citizens who are more equal than others just reinforces the arbitrary manner in which we are governed. I only support laws that expand freedom and by repealing other stupid laws. I encourage others to do the same. We will never win with "stepping stones" to nowhere. And yeah, Jarhead, all cops can go to hell and take their big federal grants with them.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:22:58 PM EDT
In my opinion: PRO'S: 1. A nationwide CCW for LE personnel will allow for more armed "good guys" in amongst the populace in each state. This would especially be the case in those fascist states where it is so hard for a citizen to obtain a CCW a criminal can be 99% sure he/she can commit violent acts without fear of immediate injury. 2. It will allow that group of people to exercise their right to self defense in America. 3. It would be a slap in the face to the states of the US who enjoy the monopoly of armament limited to their "chosen few." 4. I think it would make police officers a little more lenient dealing with CCW holders should they figure they're lucky enough to be allowed to carry interstate. 5. The LEAA is a good organization, they are fighting more for the "little guy" than the FOP who do nothing of the such. Their intentions are good in my opinion. CON's: 1. The first big con would be that the majority of states' Attorneys General would sue the federal government in federal court because the feds have no authority to make this law and it would go against the states' "Police Powers" that are laid out in the Constitution. HR 218 would be declared Unconstitutional in the first case brought under the 10th Amendment arguement as written. 2. A law enforcement officer's authority to enforce the law and carry a weapon and badge is granted under the jurisdictional authority of the agency they work for. They are officials of a specific jurisdiction and their badge can legally only carry as much "weight" as the agency they represent. Police officers don't carry a weapon in the same way or for the same reason that non-LE citizens do. Police officers are granted the authority (not a right per se) to carry a weapon in the performance of their duties. That is why police officers can generally carry in any state NOW, provided they are on official business. Just because the Sheriff of Wherever, California says that his deputies can carry 24/7, do you think the Massachusetts state government or the NYSP, etc. care one little bit what the Sheriff of Wherever, California says his officers can/can't do under the authority of their badge and his office? I don't think so. He has no law enforcement authority in Massachusetts or New York, besides any courtesy authority those states elect to give him (interstate investigations, etc.) therefore his employees have no LE authority in another state. 3. History will show that no exception granted LE is ever passed on to non-LE. I challenge anyone in disagreement to prove me wrong. The reality is that as we speak, law enforcement agencies are being provided with military grade weapons and equipment while non-LE citizens are having simple bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and adjustable stocks removed from their weapons under threat of federal felony. If anything, LE and non-LE are moving farther away in these regards. So, I find no evidence to support the "trickle down" theory. 4. Not all LE agencies hire quality people or train their officers properly. There are police officers out there who I wouldn't even hire to flip burgers at the local BK. These rogues/idiots would be a huge liability to states. So anyway, although there are many pro's to HR 218, it will not become law and if it does it will be tossed in short order. My $.02
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:38:15 PM EDT
I am a member of both the FOP and LEAA. The LEAA has supported various versions of this Bill for quite some time, including when democrats attached a rider to one version several years ago, that would have included all civilian CCW permit holders { in order to keep it from passing}. The FOP just came on board last year and does not support including civilians. I do look at this Bill as a stepping stone and yes, alot of LEO's won't support a civilian provision. However, if this Bill passes, it can and will be used to assist in a movement towards National CCW. No, I can't give an example, let do it this time. The LEAA states this rather clearly. Does anyone think that all the anti's wanted was Brady or the assault weapon ban? They took those victories and moved on towards their final goal. We need to copy that plan. Right now it's doing a fairly good job of dividing us. I also don't like the idea of making different rules for different types of citizens, but if it gets us what we are all looking for in the long run, then it's a good tactic. As far as your comment on hi cap mags , yes I can buy hi caps. They are clearly marked "for export or LE use only". When I retire, I can't keep them. It's a Felony. I have to sell them to an FFL or active LEO, unless they are issued to me upon my retirement, which they won't be. The same law applies to any " assault weapon" purchased while an LEO. I legally purchased them but suddenly can't be trusted with them. That's just another ban I want to see repealed. These mags are just for my issued weapon and a backup. The range master WILL NOT issue a letter, required for purchase, for just any weapon, inclunding any rifle. Yes, I want National reciprocity for all CCW permit holders. We can't get there from here. We need to use incrementalism, just like our opponents do.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 5:48:19 PM EDT
My thoughts on this Bill if passed might do away with CCW. Reason being, "now we have a million LEO's carring we don't need civilians having CCW."
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:53:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Wow! Hard-case, right on the money with that post! I would further add that ex-military people deserve no extra rights or special privileges either. I can shoot better than 90% of the people who have served in the military or are currently serving
View Quote
I get a free DL from my state because I served. I bet that pisses you off. As for your 90% statement, sounds pretty arrogant and I doubt that it is true.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:14:07 PM EDT
Okay, I got slammed by a MOD on "BOTS" for chiming in on this issue, so I might as well put my .02 in here. I do not believe LEO is now or will ever in the future support a NCCW for civilians. I think that they are asking for an exemption from the law ,much in the same way they did under the domestic violence restrictions. But if asked, disregarding my better judgement, I will support this legislation. Why you may ask? Because, unlike you or me, LEO as a provision of their employment must deal with the scum of our society. And while I may be called upon to protect myself and my family from random violence, I will probably never encounter a situation where someone comes looking for ME because of something I have done to THEM. Just MHO.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:40:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: And yeah, Jarhead, all cops can go to hell and take their big federal grants with them.
View Quote
You just proved something there, big guy, but I'm not sure what it is.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 8:15:55 PM EDT
no on 218. equal protection under the law - we all carry or none of us carry. with 218, we all work for the same goal, some don't need to work as hard since 'i got mine'. i am no better than an off-duty or retired leo, they are no better than me. gun control is not possible without the consent of the voters.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 8:27:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 8:29:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FL_BOY: equal protection under the law
View Quote
There is no such thing anymore. NONE of the gun control laws would have passed if it weren't for sections labeled "EXEMPTIONS". It doesn't matter if most cops don't support gun bans, what matters is that the ones that do are publically vocal about it while getting lots of media attention at law signing ceremonies. All men are created equal, only some are more equal than others.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 8:29:47 PM EDT
From reading the responses above it seems that perhaps it would lead to expanded coverage for at least some civilians. In that the first case where a man defends himself from breaking the law may site case or law whereby they draw a comparison between the LEO's ability and responsability concerning the empoyment of a firearm and the person under indictment for doing the same thing. In other words the man charged with the crime might be able to prove some sort of equal professionalism or something to the effect whereby a precedent is set. But on the outset and without the above scenario or expanded coverage explicitly set forth by the new law, I would have to say that I am against it not on its own basis but merely on an issue of scope. Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 4:43:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: It doesn't matter if most cops don't support gun bans, what matters is that the ones that do are publically vocal about it while getting lots of media attention at law signing ceremonies.
View Quote
Are they really cops though, or are they politicians? Chiefs and assistant chiefs are there usually at the whim of the current political administration, and have to toe the line to keep drawing a paycheck. They may wear a badge, but they're probably too busy finishing their Masters degrees in public administration to pin it on except when the cameras are rolling.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 9:48:43 AM EDT
So it looks like around 6 to 3 against, so far. LEAA never answered my direct question about whether they would lobby for universal reciprocity for [b]all permit holders[/b] once all present and former [b]badge holders[/b] get it. Should I take that as a hint?
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 2:50:32 PM EDT
as a police officer and former Army grunt I dont believe anything good can come from creating a better class of americans. Definitely no. Cops, troopers, deputies, soldiers and marines are all americans and none of them are any better than the others. Trickshot made an ass out of himself with the "cops can go to hell" comment but he was right about increasing our freedom by repealing existing unconstitutional laws.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 3:51:50 PM EDT
To be honest, I don't see the reason for a nationwide cop carry provision. I have a Texas CHL and the carry provisions are a lot looser than on the police side. I never travel anywhere that is not reciprocal with Texas anyway. (Well, Canada, but that's a different thread). One thing to keep in mind. LEAA exists to benefit it's members. It's not going to lobby for anything that does not directly impact the people that pay the bills. They're not going to to make effort toward a National CCW for everyone, anymore than your local electrician's union stands up for (non-dues paying) grocery boys.
Link Posted: 5/16/2002 4:10:23 PM EDT
The police unions have much power. They can proclaim whether the wall of blue shirts and guns will appear behind a pol in many states. They give powerful endorsements, and even more powerful checks, to pols. Their unions join with others in giving instructions to the democratic party. If they get what they want they will do nothing to help us little people, and may even oppose our efforts. REMEMBER, the beat cop may be your friend, but the union bosses are liberals to the left of the old soviet union. If the beat cop is not sreaming over some issue then the bosses can use the union power as they please.
Top Top