I have a friend who is a police officer in Arizona, and he travels to California once or twice a month. As you may imagine, he does not have a California CCW license, but this does not stop him from carrying. His badge is his CCW license.

It's called "Professional Courtesy." He doesn't get speeding tickets. He doesn't get his car searched. He doesn't get jacked up against his car with his arms twisted behind him. He doesn't get his weapon unloaded and disabled and get made to walk home through bad neighborhoods.

This practice is apparently being codified into law. Congress is now considering HR 218, which would exempt present and retired police officers from state laws prohibiting concealed carry. Police unions are strongly behind this bill --the same police unions that oppose nearly every law which would confer these same rights on "ordinary citizens."

While I'm ordinarily a supporter of my local police, I don't think I can get behind the creation or legitimization of a special class of citizens. I see letters to my Senators and Representative in my future.

[b]Edited to add: This isn't about cop-bashing, and if that's what it turns into, I'll just kill the thread.[/b]

I don't know.  While I agree with you that police or retired police shouldn't have special status under the law...I do see allowing them to carry as a step in the right direction.

For example, if I support tax cuts (which I do) would I oppose a cut that doesn't apply to me or that I couldn't exploit?  No.  I support all tax cuts, period.  Similarly, I support all conceal carry laws.

Now, the cops are supposed to be the good guys, and for the sake of argument let's assume that to be the case.  Isn't it better to have more good guys out there carrying than less?  It's a no brainer.  We should get what we can when we can and come back for the rest later.  Agree?

No, I don't agree. This is just like Don Perata of California having a CCW but authoring damn near every anti-gun bill [b]for the rest of us to follow[/b] that he can.

The police unions and fraternal organizations lobby against every CCW law that comes up, saying that we'll be shooting each other over parking spaces and blood will flow in the streets. Reality doesn't bear out that assertion, but that doesn't stop them from repeating it, like the Big Lie that it is. Until America is 100% shall-issue and every state has reciprocity with every other, a protected or more noble and deserving class shouldn't be created.

When I see police officers or their unions/fraternal orders on TV supporting CCW for the rest of us, I might think differently. If they got out in front of the issue and lobbied for universal CCW and reciprocity, a law wouldn't be needed to make them a special class of citizens.

If we support this right for the police, does anyone think they will support it for us?

contrary to popular belief, many Police Officers support CCW of citizens. It is not a secret that the bad guys carry anyway, whether they have a stupid card that says it ok, or not. The citizen who goes through the proper legal hoops, is the same citizen who will carry responsibly.

What sucks is that --generally speaking-- it's not the guys on this forum, who will read this post who need to hear this.

I can't afford a skywriter right now, so this will have to do, aside from those letters to my legislators, and maybe one to the Dallas Morning Snooze.

I try to keep an open mind on this, but every time I think about it I remember an ad from the gubernatorial election, in which a smiling FOP officer is shaking McGreevey's hands, with McGreevey saying 'the only people who should carry concealed are police officers'. Heck, NJ police organizations have supported just about every legal attack on the 2nd in our state....why the hell should I support an expanding of their powers? I hate to say it, but with the way I've seen a lot of police acting these days, the benefit of doubt is gone and quid pro quo is in.

I also don't think this means anything with regards to CCW. It doesn't do anything but legitimize a semi-legal practice of police abuse of powers. It in no way grants any 'new' CCW powers, and certainly doesn't do anything for civillian CCW. I'm also rather upset at how much people seem to support it simply because it is LEO only. And they say we live in a CLASSLESS society?

soylentgreen - so if someone created a staggered tax system, where it broke down to the following, you'd vote for it:
0-12k : 15%
13-25k : 23%
25-75k : 38%
76-150k : 43%
150k+ : 3%

Remember, it is a tax cut.

Certain states already have reciprocal agreements for carrying. It also depends on the agency's policy and if they are authorized to carry off duty by the agency (and I've never heard of a place that doesn't authorize it for full time active LEO). Likewise there is rumor that the FED's are allowing local LEO to carry on aircraft when they travel domestic. But, it is up to the officer/agency to seek approval to carry in the jurisdiction he is traveling to. Say traveling from Tampa to New York, the officer would have to be sure he could carry in New York once he landed. If not he could be in for a big surprise on the other end if he is not. New York, by the way, frowns upon carrying in the city unless it's on official business, you're one of their own or you're a Fed.

(edited for the spelling errors I'm smart enough to catch).

How come we never hear them speaking publicly against organizations such as the PBA and FOP, who have had LONG standing positions AGAINST citizen carry? How come no word is said when a police chief goes on record that 'the police' do not support citizen CCW? Yes, I know several police officers who support CCW for citizens, but if they don't DO anything, it doesn't MEAN anything. It's like those people who bitch and complain about losing their rights, and then just vote whatever their union tells them to vote.

I for one support it !  Personally, I hate most of the so called Police organizations. I have been a LEO for over 10 years, and they ain't done crap for me ! What really pisses me off, is how they lobby for things ie...window tint laws, stricter gun laws, etc., that most LEOs are against. These things get passed, and again a lot of non LEOs are mad at us AGAIN !

Every LAW abiding citizen of these great UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, should have the right to carry !!!!!!!!! Nuff said..

By the way Jarhead...Quite a number of states are allowing/accepting CCWs from outside states.
Most LEO's are on your side, IMO. WE are all fellow/brother citizens...Pat

hard-case makes an excellent point.  I think leo's tend to forget a lot of times that they too are regular citizens and a few weeks of training and a metal badge doesn't mean a great deal in the eyes of populous America. I remember seeing a statistic not too long ago that the most law abiding citizens in the U.S. were CCW holders, even moreso than leo's. Interesting thread keep it goin guys.

ques

I'm glad to know you think that way, Pat. We can use all the help we can get. Get elected to a position in your FOP or whatever, PLEASE!

I'm aware that there is reciprocity between [b]some[/b] states, but examining the minutia of each state's carry regulations can be mind-boggling if you're on a long road trip. If I drove from my home in Texas out to San Diego, I could carry here, have to unload, case and lock my pistol in New Mexico, strap it back on in Arizona, then unload, case and lock it again once I crossed the California line. [>:/]

Jarhead, I understand what you are saying. My Dad and I recently tried to figure some of that "well written bs", on the gun carry out of your home state topic. It can be very confusing and hard to keep up with !

As far as the getting elected part..I appreciate the thought ! Here in south Alabama, one thing is for sure..CORRUPTION !!!! Most of the guys that get elected to any position, political or otherwise, are "sellouts". It makes us "working guys" sick. I could go on and on. Like our recent election, where a local Police organization's leader came out in the newspaper stating they were supporting the mayor for re-election, when the vast majority of their members voted to support a different candidate. I swear sometimes it seems like no matter what you try, you just can't win !

I see two sides to this, one side suggests that more off-duty police carrying provides better public safety, the other side offering the possibility that civilians will get legislation denying them armed protection options due to the doctrine of making police or military our sole protectors.

I am afraid elitism does exist so it worries me that such concepts of enabling police with armed carry in non-resident states creates a mind-set in some legislators to endorse Martialism over citizens' rights. We cannot allow only the military and police to be the ones' to have arms.

I see more validity to the idea of sworn active police having carry rights beyond their own state borders than do CCW civilians (Constitutionally), however, once retired, there should be no difference between them and a civilian. I really endorse a universally accepted national CCW, but since each state has different laws it is unreasonable to expect one to be versed in all state law regarding self-defense. My real belief lies in the fact that defending your life comes first and that in your legal defense you will have to accept whatever various consequences state laws dictate.

OT: Pat, are you anywhere near Enterprise, AL? Shoot me an email if you've got a minute. Thanks.

I am an L.E.O. I support C.C.W. for private citezens all of my work buddies agree too but we are in OK.

I went to Kalifonrnia one time with a friend also an L.E.O. I left my Glock in the hotel he C.C.W. got pulled over for a broken tag light. told the officer he was an officer from TX and was C.C.W....guess what he got arrested and they called his chief....he got suspended without pay and a leter of repermand. The local D.A. in CA cut him a break and didnt persue it farther....so where was his break he didnt go to prison. he did stay 32 hr in jail though...

You've got mail !!

Neither does 99.9% of the general population. Becuase they are smart enough to avoid contact with the cops in that sort of advasarial role.

Well, if I was in that position, I'd be a felon right now and trying to avoid Bubba's affections in the showers before lockdown and evening count, so he still came out on top, and you have to admit that that is the exception rather than the rule.

You didn't address my point though: do you think this bill is fair?

Thanks for clearing up exactly where you stand on the issue.

No, you would be cited and released on your promise to appear. The gun would be destroyed and you would get a fine or probation. CCW is only a wobbler in Kali.

Everyone except convicted felone should be able to carry C.C.W....it would be a safer country

Why even bother to reply if you're only going to address an example, one case, very nearly a side issue?

You're right, but will you support this bill in the meantime?

Yes if it means I can carry all over yes....I thnk they should amend the bill to include a nation widw C.C.W. for every one....
but I dont think they will do this..

I support it (but I am a little self serving sorry)

I would like to ad I fully support a nation wide concealed carry for everyone.........

start writing your Reps.

Even if HR 218 is signed into law, it won't last.  Various States' Attorney's Offices will sue to get the law nullified on 10th Amendment grounds.  In my opinion, they'd be right.  The Constitutional police powers of the states would take precedence.  The federal government will never be allowed to loosen restrictive state/local gun laws, only overrule in the stricter sense.

I won't, No Compromise!  This is bullcrap, I think whether you are a boy in blue, green, black or just a normal citizen, you should get to ccw any state.

What about those screwy laws on having a CHL and not being able to carry a fixed blade concealed, that is retarded also.

I never understood that ...you can carry a 44/45/10mm or what ever but you cant carry a fixed blade if you are C.C.W.....

Remember...most LEO support the right for CCW.  It is FOP (national level), Chiefs of Police (for political purposes) that do not support the CCW.  Keep in mind that by allowing LEO first, you can radually make an argument for everyone to carry.  No different than the pilots who want the ability to carry on the plane.  By letting them do it, you can build a case.  The biggest reason for this is because a large segment of the population, either because they read and believe the liberal view that "guns are bad...only bad guys have guns...and if you get a gun it will make you want to kill!"; or because they grew up with no exposure to them other than what they see/hear.  The latter part are the easiest to "switch".  You can take them shooting and show them that "guns can be fun".  I too would like all these BS gun laws to be rescinded overnight but I'm also a realist.  Just like the gun control advocates are stripping our rights "one step at a time", we have to regain out rights "one step at a time".  

This argument certainly doesn't seem to hold water in Ohio or Missouri, where off-duty cops can carry concealed, but other classes of citizen are not afforded the same rights. Regardless of your "domino theory," this law still creates, or at least codifies, a special privileged class. Also, when I see rank and file officers getting in front of the cameras and saying it in public like the bodies that are [b]supposed[/b] to represent them, then and only then will I believe that "most LEO support the right for CCW."

Well... I think that in this case, they would lose, as I believe there is a 2nd amendment that says something to the effect of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." with [b]bear[/b] binging the operative word here.

We have become desensitived to the fact that the [b]states[/b] have taken away this right to bear arms, and some have repackaged it back to us as a privelege in the form of concealed carry permits.

Perhaps I should temper my argument somewhat.  I'm not talking about massively unfair taxcuts.  Nor would I consider a CCW for police to be grossly unfair.

I see the point that is being made by you and others here.  In fact, I respect it a lot.  I just think that conservative politics in this country are played as an all-or-nothing game.  That is why we continue to lose ground and see our society become more and more liberalized.

Please understand my point.  I believe this is very important.  Conservatives tend to stand by principle.  And, that is commendable.  In many cases, it is absolutely necessary.  However, in many cases, we will see ourselves gray haired old men before we see any results from our stubbornness.  So, I say again, let's take a small victory where we can and then pursue the next victory.  This is the EXACT tactic that the Left uses on us so successfully all the time.  First, they ban this, then that.  They ban "assault rifles" and handguns.  Eventually, it leads to the banishment of all guns...they win.  We too should adopt the long term outlook and seek small victories.  In ten, twenty, or thirty years we will have success.  If we stick to our guns (no pun intended), then it is likely we will never see our Freedoms materialize.

Feel free to disagree.  I respect healthy intellectual disagreement.  Thank you.

Oh, one thing that does make me sick is politicians who exempt themselves from the law.

In the city of Chicago NO ONE is allowed to even own a handgun except police officers, the mayor, and city council members.  The mayor and the city council members can even carry concealed handguns!  Now THAT is outrageous!!!

ken2483 - You make some good points, but I don't believe there is an "trickle down" when it comes to this sort of thing, even though many good LEOs would support that.  Think about it, just because LE can still own and possess "LE only" magazines and rifles that just a few short years ago everyone could, does that mean this brings non-LE citizens any closer to legally owning them again?  I doubt it.  And don't forget, LE agencies can buy and officers can possess/use brand new automatic weapons.  Does this mean non-LE citizens will ever be able to do that again?  Almost certainly not.  I think these exceptions for law enforcement can do nothing but further damage the rights of non-LE citizens.  High ranking LEOs like to monopolize authority granted them and their departments.  This does not even solely pertain to LE vs. non-LE, look at all the interagency rivalries there are.  Once police agencies are granted something, they fight tenaciously to keep it exclusive to themselves.

I think Jarhead_22 hits the nail on the head when he talks about the creation of a special, privileged class of Americans.  Remember when it became a federal law that anyone convicted at any time of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime could never again own, possess, or use a firearm, the FOP and other big name LE agencies went wild!  However, they did not complain because it would now allow a misdemeanor-level conviction to permanently destroy a persons' 2nd Amendment rights under the US Constitution, or because it applied to prior convictions per se.... but only because there was no exemption in the law for police officers.  As if a wife beating police officer is somehow better or less dangerous to society than a wife beater who does not carry the badge???  This is the logic of the prominent LE spokepeople in the US.  This is generally not the position of the honest, hardworking, rank-and-file policeman.  Regardless of logic, once police are granted a special privilege, the FOP and other unions would fight tooth and nail to keep that privilege exclusive to them.

Again, just my humble opinion. [:)]

I would.  Why?

1) I want to be in the 150k+ tax bracket.  Getting closer every year.

2) However, #1 is irrelavant because anybody making 150k+ per year is paying less taxes than the peons in the lower tax brackets because of the way the tax system works.  

I know this isn't the original intent of the post but I thought I'd point out that the income tax doesn't mean much to the rich.

Everyone except felons and mental cases should be allowed CCW, this applies to citizens, LEOs on all levels, retired etc, normal joe blow, etc. It should be reciprocated to all states and
(except maybe DC, where NO one should carry, the criminals all do now so why not disarm the politicians too  [}:)].)

Now if you abuse your CCW or are deemed a mental moron, then you should loose it.

Won't fight for it? Then don't deserve it.

I'm a retired LEO from Ohio and several years ago I testified for the CCW bill when hearings were held on it in Columbus.  What made me angry were all the LEO's there who testified against it, and to top it off, the naysayers had first crack at testifying, and by the time I got up to speak, most of the listeners, other than the committee members had left.  There was even a spokesperson for Dick*&^* Mayor White of Cleveland, there to testify against the bill and she was brought to the meeting by a uniformed officer in a police car.  What a bunch of crap that was.  

I have been an FOP member for 12 years. The national FOP is strongly against civilian CCW. My local and most officers I know support civilian CCW. The best Leo organization that I have found is the LEAA. They support civilian CCW, repealing the "assault weapon" ban and overturning the magazine ban. I support HR 218, but no one needs to worry about it passing. It's been around in various forms for about 10 years. About 3 years ago a rider was attached to include civilian CCW permit holders. It was never voted on. " Politicians" love to support this Bill. It shows everyone how much they support Leo's, but they will probably never allow it to come to a vote. It currently has over 230 co sponsors, but no one will initiate a discharge petition to get it voted on. If we fought the anti gun position the same way that they fight us, we would be much better off. Take every small victory that we can get, even if it doesn't include everyone, and give no ground on "reasonable" controls.

This point has already been addressed: There is no "trickle down" of rights. You can have new full-auto, I can't, and likely never will. The same goes for new, full capacity magazines, autoknife carry, etc. Just because a law is passed that allows you to do something I can't doesn't make it a victory for all of us.

That's an unfortunate attitude Jarhead_22. By your logic everyone living in PRK should support the assault weapon ban since if it's allowed to sunset, they still can't have one, so why should anyone else? Do you oppose the Vermont State law allowing citizens to ccw without a permit? After all, you can't do it. The anti's like division within our group. When they go after one class of guns or people, those not affected say " oh well, I don't have one" and take no action. They have done it with the evil black rifles V. hunting guns. Many hunters don't know why anyone would want one of those rifles and refuse to support you. I guess it's working.

A recent poll of police Cheifs showed that 60% suported CCW by civilians.

Now 60% isn't a great number, but it more than the IACP or FOP would have you believe (I personally think they are bunch of commies).

As far as police organizations go, ours deal primarily with labor issues, like pay and benefits. Whn the support changes in criminal law, it is usually stuff that deals directly with officer safety.

Most cops where I live support CCW. It just makes sense. I don't leave the house without a weapon, and I can see why nobody else would either.

Some of the cops I work with actually have CHLs (and I am thinking about it, too). The CHL actually provides better authority to carry out of state than being an officer, due to the reciprocity agreement.

The proposed national law allowing carry by peace officers is good. It is an acknowledgement that people have a right to self-defense, and that one armed person, in the right place at the right time, can make a difference. Remember, most states only consider their Peace Officers to be an officer. When I leave my state of residence, I have no more authority to arrest or carry than anyone elses (except under very limited circumstances, like transporting a fugitive).