View Full Version : LEOSA Reform Act legislation in the 2018 died
platoonDaddy
01-01-19, 16:18
Updated plan for 2019
LEOSA Reform Act legislation in the 2018 Congress died. Here is an update on plans for 2019:
U.S. Congressman Pushing Change To Block States From Banning Cops Carrying Guns
By Sandy Malone
December 23, 2018
Blue Lives Matter
U.S. Rep. Don Bacon plans to introduce important LEOSA amendments in the next Congress.
https://bacon.house.gov/media/press-releases/bacon-introduces-updated-legislation-improve-concealed-carry-legislation
Needs an add on so that states can't have laws banning anyone from carrying concealed or open.
Needs an add on so that states can't have laws banning anyone from carrying concealed or open.
When off duty, all Police officers should be required to follow the laws that apply to the general public. All of them. No matter what they are. Same for Federal Agents. They too should be required to follow the State and local laws for where they are when not on the clock.
That will will force a needed change.
When off duty, all Police officers should be required to follow the laws that apply to the general public. All of them. No matter what they are. Same for Federal Agents. They too should be required to follow the State and local laws for where they are when not on the clock.
That will will force a needed change.
I agree. They should be required to follow the same laws as all other citizens. Kinda like I think, for instance, LE in CA should be limited to the same castrated firearms as all the other citizens of that state.
When off duty, all Police officers should be required to follow the laws that apply to the general public. All of them. No matter what they are. Same for Federal Agents. They too should be required to follow the State and local laws for where they are when not on the clock.
That will will force a needed change.
Really? Quit posturing for the internet, use some common sense and think about it.
If you can't come up with a couple of reasons why someone who is sent to volatile situations might ought to be allowed to carrying a firearm when they aren't working, let me know I'll help you out.
I know of at least 2 states for sure plus a city where I can't carry regular capacity magazines, so I am restricted the same as citizens. I do acknowledge I do have the right to carry due to my time spent as a cop in the USA under LEOSA.
Really? Quit posturing for the internet, use some common sense and think about it.
If you can't come up with a couple of reasons why someone who is sent to volatile situations might ought to be allowed to carrying a firearm when they aren't working, let me know I'll help you out.
OK smart guy. I said OFF DUTY. And none of this BS about always on duty. And if that is your reasoning then all of the MIL should be exempt from the rules.
FYI, I don't posture on the internet. Fact is fact. Deal with it and stop getting butthurt because just because you are a cop a d that doesn't make you special in the least.
As a matter of fact if ON DUTY LEOs were required to do their job under the same laws that everyone else is required to follow it may force a real change in the laws.
All laws should be EQUAL AND FAIR to all, if you do not agree with that then you should not be an LEO.
OK smart guy. I said OFF DUTY. And none of this BS about always on duty. And if that is your reasoning then all of the MIL should be exempt from the rules.
FYI, I don't posture on the internet. Fact is fact. Deal with it and stop getting butthurt because just because you are a cop a d that doesn't make you special in the least.
As a matter of fact if ON DUTY LEOs were required to do their job under the same laws that everyone else is required to follow it may force a real change in the laws.
All laws should be EQUAL AND FAIR to all, if you do not agree with that then you should not be an LEO.
Doc just dropped a truth bomb. This is exactly how I feel.
I heard this from a very smart man and wanted to share it here:
If you’re in fear of your citizens, you shouldn’t be the one protecting/arresting/serving them.
Outlander Systems
01-01-19, 18:57
I support allowing retired and off-duty military having access to the same fully automatic weapons and explosives they had access to on duty.
dwhitehorne
01-01-19, 19:34
OK smart guy. I said OFF DUTY. And none of this BS about always on duty.
So the Federal government has given me training, a weapon and ammunition to take a human life under circumstances not covered by the general population. Also the General Rules section of my Administrative General Orders states exactly that an officer is always on duty. So we are treated different in a way than the general population and held to a higher standard. No different than when you were in a hostile country your weapon was no further than arms reach at all times even when not outside the wire. We are not afraid of citizens, we swore an oath to protect. Why squabble over who is who when we should work on protecting everyone’s constitutional rights. David
Really? Quit posturing for the internet, use some common sense and think about it.
If you can't come up with a couple of reasons why someone who is sent to volatile situations might ought to be allowed to carrying a firearm when they aren't working, let me know I'll help you out.
Yes, really. And not for one second do I believe LEO’s should be deprived of any tool nor would i want them to be...
But- NEITHER SHOULD ANYONE ELSE, LEO OR NOT!
I don’t believe in separate classes of citizens with separate rules to adhere to. It runs counter to the entire foundation and principle of Liberty.
Let me start this by saying that it is my opinion that anyone should be able to carry anywhere in the country.
So when you disagree with what I'm about to say, refer to the above.
I consider myself a people just like anyone else. I have had heated discussions with cops from states that don't allow concealed carry or standard capacity magazines that come across the border and buy 30 round mags and bring them home because they are cops.
BUT...
Because I live in a state that borders several states that CCW is illegal, and I have been a cop when you couldn't carry anywhere, this law is important because a cop who travels into New Jersey to get gas, for example, gets stopped by some hot shot cop and they find a gun in his car and now he's a felon and can no longer work because of a law that makes no sense and he can see his state just across the bridge.
I was stopped by NJSP several years ago before HR218. I badged the trooper and instead of acknowledging that I was a fellow officer, the trooper asked if I had a gun in the car.
Can you see my point of view?
Let me start this by saying that it is my opinion that anyone should be able to carry anywhere in the country.
So when you disagree with what I'm about to say, refer to the above.
I consider myself a people just like anyone else. I have had heated discussions with cops from states that don't allow concealed carry or standard capacity magazines that come across the border and buy 30 round mags and bring them home because they are cops.
BUT...
Because I live in a state that borders several states that CCW is illegal, and I have been a cop when you couldn't carry anywhere, this law is important because a cop who travels into New Jersey to get gas, for example, gets stopped by some hot shot cop and they find a gun in his car and now he's a felon and can no longer work because of a law that makes no sense and he can see his state just across the bridge.
I was stopped by NJSP several years ago before HR218. I badged the trooper and instead of acknowledging that I was a fellow officer, the trooper asked if I had a gun in the car.
Can you see my point of view?
Absolutely I see your point of view. But- the law should be across the board. No separate classes of citizens and no separate rules for different classes of citizen.
Just because someone isn’t an LEO doesn’t mean that they don’t face the same career ending felony and BS that would be visited upon them, laid out in your scenario.
I’m on your side and hope that the law is changed and hope further that it changes for EVERYONE, not just LEO’s.
The biggest issue I have with anyone having a separate set of rules is that it instantly pits them against the other classes of citizens and vice versa- wether they want/like it or not.
It's called skin in the game.
A better country would be one where the perpetrators in the NJSP (plural) example got to do a stint in the pen for deprivation of rights under color of authority.
echo5whiskey
01-01-19, 21:43
Hey gents, happy new year!
The following contains by opinions and my understanding of state-level LE functions:
1. If I'm not mistaken, most states require their certified LEOs to respond to the commission of a crime anywhere they are granted law enforcement powers. Also if I'm not mistaken, most states do not recognize LE powers from out-of-state LEOs, except in extenuating circumstances (e.g. natural disasters, terrorism, etc.). That removes the requirement aspect of their function as LEOs in another state. This is where LEOSA comes into play. If you are a state-certified LEO in any other state outside your own, you are, in effect, no different than any other concealed carrier (except in Hawaii, but that's another story). I do agree that those who are expected and required to respond to potentially violent situations have the means necessary to do so in the safest fashion. And since LEOSA doesn't assign powers or jurisdiction, I don't see the problem in requiring out-of-state LEOs to follow state law.
Federal LEOs, of course are a little different. Their jurisdiction supersedes state boundaries, but only within the scope of their duties and according to the law. There is only one federal LE agency, of which I'm aware, that does not issue standard weapons to its sworn officers. For everyone else, they generally carry their issued sidearms or those approved by their agency. Since they have both jurisdiction and requirement (again, within the scope of their duties), LEOSA doesn't even apply. For that other agency, however, LEOSA is the only law that does apply; since they are issued neither firearms nor badges. That agency's scope of responsibility is so narrow, though, that the officers will most likely never be put in a situation where they will have to use their LE powers off-duty. Therefore, they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
2. Despite what many think, LEOs are necessary. We don't live in a perfect world where everyone follows the rules. LEOs are specifically trained to uphold and enforce the law, within legal guidelines. It would be great if every John Smith and Jane Doe were able to enforce the law, but they can't. Why? If I were to post one statute on any board, or--God forbid--facebook, imagine how many interpretations of that law there would be. Everyone wants to read the law in their own way. That is why LEOs get training on how those laws are meant to be enforced. Yes, I understand the whole "safety/security vs liberty" thing, and I generally lean more toward the liberty side; so, it would be great if every citizen of this country took responsibility for his/her own safety/security, but they don't. On top of that, LE doesn't have the option of turning a blind eye, like everyone else.
Folks, I deeply respect pretty much everyone here. If I had to guess, I'd say I probably fall into the lower half of membership when it comes to training and/or experience. Those of us down here look up to you guys. Please, let's keep it civil, and not take this stuff too personally.
Have a great night!
OK smart guy. I said OFF DUTY. And none of this BS about always on duty. And if that is your reasoning then all of the MIL should be exempt from the rules.
I'm not going to give you any of the never off duty bullshit. The primary reason that I find fault with your stance is that LEO's are generally sent to situations from which most folks in their right minds would srun from. They make arrests and confront those folks, and their families, and their friends in court as they are giving witness against them.
If you cant see some potential for push back based on those facts, then we will never come to an understanding.
FYI, I don't posture on the internet. Fact is fact. Deal with it and stop getting butthurt because just because you are a cop a d that doesn't make you special in the least.
Your facts are actually your opinions and they are far from immutable. You are correct in the assertion that the police are not special. In fact, I firmly believe that, as Sir Robert Peele postulated, the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Continuing in that vein, the police should be held to the standard of the good citizen, something that all citizens fall short off at times.
But to the point, the only reason that police should be allowed to carry off-duty in jurisdictions where every citizen can't, is because that the knowledge/belief that an off duty officer is likely to be armed prevents retaliation from the criminal elements they come in contact with.
As a matter of fact if ON DUTY LEOs were required to do their job under the same laws that everyone else is required to follow it may force a real change in the laws.
I don't think it would be the end of the world if police were regulated to 10 round mags in 10 round states. It just means you need to reload. In terms of other laws, what are you speaking of?
All laws should be EQUAL AND FAIR to all, if you do not agree with that then you should not be an LEO.
I agree. I think I was a pretty good LEO, and I was a better than average trainer/instructor, which was my main career.
I also live in a Constitutional Carry State, which I fully support. I'm also not eligible to carry under LESO.
When off duty, all Police officers should be required to follow the laws that apply to the general public. All of them. No matter what they are. Same for Federal Agents. They too should be required to follow the State and local laws for where they are when not on the clock.
That will will force a needed change.
I agree.
NYH1.
When off duty, all Police officers should be required to follow the laws that apply to the general public. All of them. No matter what they are. Same for Federal Agents. They too should be required to follow the State and local laws for where they are when not on the clock.
That will will force a needed change.
I was going to reply with a more hash tone, but I tamped it back to ask a question...What is that needed change?
eightmillimeter
01-02-19, 00:11
Forcing the small percentage of officers who carry “all the time” and in this instance the even smaller percentage that carries when they travel, to have to worry about local and state bs isn’t going to force any needed change. I get your points, but a couple inconvenienced cops aren’t going to the the catalyst for all around better laws.
I support allowing retired and off-duty military having access to the same fully automatic weapons and explosives they had access to on duty...............................
They do have access, most of them like most of us just can't afford them .
We are all citizens & therefore all adhere to the same rules. If you feel they're too restrictive join the fight. Creating a "separate but equal" class is the cowards way out. Protecting the innocent doesn't stop at physical harm's doorstep.
I keep a CWL just because in a lot of ways I think LEOSA is complete bullshit even if it is in my favor.
I don't know why Carry licenses cant be like driver's licenses.
THAT SAID, I know oodles of older salts who carried anywhere before LEOSA and would do so without.
Same for GIs.
The Some Animals spiel is gay, stupid, and just pits us against one another due to whichever job we took.
If anything Pizza Boys have more need to carry because A) they go to the ghetto B) They got bills in hand C) Pizza yo. Gotta protect dem eats.
platoonDaddy
01-02-19, 07:08
Son-in-law is a retired Jersey LEO, when the governor signed the bill on magazine restrictions, he went ape shit. Then when the dust was settled, he was smiling, but he forgot/really doesn't care about the non-LEO's who are now felons. This BS of having separate but unequal classification of people, is further dividing this country.
Let's all keep it calm and discuss points that could have a benefit. Don't turn it into a verses thread or cop bashing, period. There's a lot that could be discussed, things that could be changed for the good.
First off, never feared the average person carrying, they were never a threat to me. If the bad guy possesses the intent to do harm, no laws are stopping it, we all know that.
I agree that there should be a national carry. Come up with a standard that isn't cost prohibitive, a standard any sane reasonable person can pass. Solicit trainers from various sources to establish this. Not one that is something Todd Jarrett can barely pass or an 80 year old with two working fingers can ace either.
I think they whole "civilian" label stems from ex mil folks who come on the job. It also is a label from some LE who establish a separation between LE and the general public. I always referred to the general public or citizens.
I always said that most people are good, which is a good thing. We all know that the bad element is a very small segment of the population. We have to understand also that when folks do somethings wrong, sometimes simple traffic stuff or a spout off at the wrong moment, don't necessarily make them a bad person. This is a rabbit hole, so I will stop here on that.
Military members required to work in public in uniform. Recruiters for example should be trained and allowed to carry concealed. They are a target, recent events has shown this. I'm certain some do it or other segments will regardless. NCO's should be armed on post as well, used to be long ago as I understand, MP's like civilian LE aren't everywhere. And I will say this-the PM at Bragg needs to boot some ass for what I saw at the gate during Christmas
Lastly, and this is one of things LE and whether you support LE or not may or may not agree on and that is LEOSA. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense. I see it from that point. I can also see it from the point of folks who disagree with it. The big difference is LE is tasked with a job and that is one more avenue to deal with a major crime of violence. Like I said above, there should also be a National Concealed Carry, one should be able to protect oneself and others if need be. I think law makers use it as a way to create separation to gain support.
I said lastly but the standards are the sticking point, not only from a performance standpoint but the eligibility to possess. That is one thing that I see being abused right now with red flags. People lie, most people lie and this seems to be a weakness as it invites abuse. I also think there's not as many "mental cases" as one thinks, but that's another issue.
Anyway, my two cents on the topic.
Keep it civil and don't ruin a good discussion. Turn it into something one can take to a representative to get change.
OK smart guy. I said OFF DUTY. And none of this BS about always on duty. And if that is your reasoning then all of the MIL should be exempt from the rules.
FYI, I don't posture on the internet. Fact is fact. Deal with it and stop getting butthurt because just because you are a cop a d that doesn't make you special in the least.
As a matter of fact if ON DUTY LEOs were required to do their job under the same laws that everyone else is required to follow it may force a real change in the laws.
All laws should be EQUAL AND FAIR to all, if you do not agree with that then you should not be an LEO.
agree 100%, also need same for congress people. (well all gov employees)
Adrenaline_6
01-02-19, 07:45
Isn't this just another divide and conquer tactic? Give some people the "right" but take it away from the rest. The ones who have it, for the most part, let it slide because they aren't affected. The ones who are affected, get angry and have contempt for the ones that are not. Either we stick together...or not. Simple as that. Each choice has it's repercussions.
I heard this from a very smart man and wanted to share it here:
If you’re in fear of your citizens, you shouldn’t be the one protecting/arresting/serving them.
:rolleyes:
If you’re a cop these days and you aren’t afraid of some segments of the population, and you don’t really know who or when, then you’re a fool with no sense of self-preservation and shouldn’t be protecting/arresting/serving anyone. And if you’re a cop that works in a state that limits your ability to protect yourself and others under any circumstance then you should look for work in a state that is committed to your safety and the safety of those you are supposed to protect.
Try again my friend. All of your points are beating a dead horse. They have been deleted.
Mark5pt56
It seems to me that all this angst stems exclusively from those states that don't trust their subjects, and don't even trust the government agents from other states? In all likelihood they don't even trust each other all that much. We can quite easily list the usual suspects, they've been pulling their garbage for so long, the 86' FOPA was because of them. States like NJ, MA, NY, MD, CT and CA, am I right? All the Dem controlled, high tax and high corruption states that rarely play well with others.
So I think the solution does lie at the federal level, but not within FOPA, LEOSA or any other federal law. No, I think the solution lies within the DoJ (or it should). Every time an otherwise law abiding gun owner exercises their 2nd Amendment right and is searched, seized, arrested and/or prosecuted, a complaint should be filed with DoJ CRD section and they should VIGOROUSLY investigate the offending agency and officers involved. If the complaint is confirmed, then the agency and officer(s) should be subject to the full penalties of the law. Every. Time.
You hang enough agencies and officers from the yardarm in these offending states and they'll stop the BS. We should be pushing our state governments and elected federal representatives to apply as much pressure as necessary on the DoJ, to pursue this course of action until these rogue states stop persecuting Americans for exercising their rights.
They're not going to stop just because some law is passed they don't respect. They will stop if you make their lives the same living hell they make our lives, should we dare cross their borders while retaining all our natural rights.
JMO, YMMV
It seems to me that all this angst stems exclusively from those states that don't trust their subjects, and don't even trust the government agents from other states? In all likelihood they don't even trust each other all that much. We can quite easily list the usual suspects, they've been pulling their garbage for so long, the 86' FOPA was because of them. States like NJ, MA, NY, MD, CT and CA, am I right? All the Dem controlled, high tax and high corruption states that rarely play well with others.
So I think the solution does lie at the federal level, but not within FOPA, LEOSA or any other federal law. No, I think the solution lies within the DoJ (or it should). Every time an otherwise law abiding gun owner exercises their 2nd Amendment right and is searched, seized, arrested and/or prosecuted, a complaint should be filed with DoJ CRD section and they should VIGOROUSLY investigate the offending agency and officers involved. If the complaint is confirmed, then the agency and officer(s) should be subject to the full penalties of the law. Every. Time.
You hang enough agencies and officers from the yardarm in these offending states and they'll stop the BS. We should be pushing our state governments and elected federal representatives to apply as much pressure as necessary on the DoJ, to pursue this course of action until these rogue states stop persecuting Americans for exercising their rights.
They're not going to stop just because some law is passed they don't respect. They will stop if you make their lives the same living hell they make our lives, should we dare cross their borders while retaining all our natural rights.
JMO, YMMV
Averageman
01-02-19, 10:10
I'm at odds a bit with this;
The LEOSA Reform Act makes improvements to current concealed carry laws by easing training burdens and restrictions on carrying for current or retired law enforcement officers.
These professionals are in every community and have completed extensive and required training to properly handle a firearm. This spring, Rep. Bacon introduced H.R. 4896, the LEOSA Training Extension Act.
I'm not sure that this isn't a West Coast/East Coast problem. When you begin restricting rights like New Jersey, California and New York do, you get a plethora of confusing Laws restricting the Second Amendment that are essentially the complete removal of any right to carry for everyone.
Law Enforcement, Military, Ex Military, Ex Law Enforcement and your average Joe who just wants to carry for their safety. They all get equally screwed.
Let us face the facts, the Laws are there not for safety, they are there to restrict your right to own and carry.
I'm not sure that making specific Laws for one very limited sector of the population actually makes things significantly better, perhaps some people might even feel it promotes an "Us and Them" mentality.
It's not that I don't want retired LEO's to be disarmed, quite the opposite, I think the original intent of these restrictive Laws needs to be closely looked at harshly and they need to be removed.
Original intent and all of that makes a big difference. Do you want an entire dookie sandwich or will you settle for just a small bite?
Let me start this by saying that it is my opinion that anyone should be able to carry anywhere in the country.
So when you disagree with what I'm about to say, refer to the above.
I consider myself a people just like anyone else. I have had heated discussions with cops from states that don't allow concealed carry or standard capacity magazines that come across the border and buy 30 round mags and bring them home because they are cops.
BUT...
Because I live in a state that borders several states that CCW is illegal, and I have been a cop when you couldn't carry anywhere, this law is important because a cop who travels into New Jersey to get gas, for example, gets stopped by some hot shot cop and they find a gun in his car and now he's a felon and can no longer work because of a law that makes no sense and he can see his state just across the bridge.
I was stopped by NJSP several years ago before HR218. I badged the trooper and instead of acknowledging that I was a fellow officer, the trooper asked if I had a gun in the car.
Can you see my point of view?
I understand exactly what you are saying and that is my point. Don't those with a CCW have the same concerns that you do? Now you get a free pass and they still get a felony conviction. LEOs should not get any special treatment. If the Adverage Joe with a CCW has to plan it out to not break any laws by crossing a state line for gas then the same should apply for Law Enforcement.
Would that not be fair?
I was going to reply with a more hash tone, but I tamped it back to ask a question...What is that needed change?
Ask any of the members from NY, NJ, CA or any of the other states that have magazine restrictions or don't allow CCW at all.
So the Federal government has given me training, a weapon and ammunition to take a human life under circumstances not covered by the general population. Also the General Rules section of my Administrative General Orders states exactly that an officer is always on duty. So we are treated different in a way than the general population and held to a higher standard. No different than when you were in a hostile country your weapon was no further than arms reach at all times even when not outside the wire. We are not afraid of citizens, we swore an oath to protect. Why squabble over who is who when we should work on protecting everyone’s constitutional rights. David
So I can assume that you have never drank alcohol since going on duty? And the MIL is not always allowed to have their weapons on them 100% of the time overseas. And the MIL has extensive training and may items are issued also.
If you are required to respond all of the time how are you required to carry a radio all of the time? If you are not carrying a weapon are you legally required to respond? Sre you legally required to carry 10% of the time?
These professionals are in every community and have completed extensive and required training to properly handle a firearm.
That gets brought up for every law against private citizens and exemption for police, but what happens when the rubber meets the road as we saw with Broward County?
I certainly do not have a problem with LE carrying off duty, if every citizen has the same right to carry whenever and however they wanted.
It's not like cops are the only profession or job where there may be a perceived threat. The pizza delivery driver is a great example, as are EMS crews, hospital staff, convenience store owners and workers, the list goes on. The threat is no different.
I certainly do not have a problem with LE carrying off duty, if every citizen has the same right to carry whenever and however they wanted.
It's not like cops are the only profession or job where there may be a perceived threat. The pizza delivery driver is a great example, as are EMS crews, hospital staff, convenience store owners and workers, the list goes on. The threat is no different.
Great point. Medical personnel can't legally work off duty in the majority of the states out there. And if you are a doctor and cross a state line you are just an average Joe, unless you hold a license there.
So why are LEOs different? Anyone care to venture a guess?
Try again my friend. All of your points are beating a dead horse. They have been deleted.
Mark5pt56
censorship because you disagree... nice.
I support allowing retired and off-duty military having access to the same fully automatic weapons and explosives they had access to on duty...............................
They do have access, most of them like most of us just can't afford them .
Not in many states. I was issued automatic weapons and Surefire suppressors...... both items are illegal in California..... unless you are a cop. Not even allowed to get your 2 tax stamps and spend crazy amounts of money on them.
See the issue.
censorship because you disagree... nice.
Not at all, the banter provides no remedy or contribution to the points being discussed. There's no benefit to it.
That gets brought up for every law against private citizens and exemption for police, but what happens when the rubber meets the road as we saw with Broward County?
That's called authority without responsibility, and it breeds contempt.
But hey, Sheriff Dudley DoRight provided "excellent" leadership to his agency, so that makes it all OK for him to support disarming his subjects. :rolleyes:
Averageman
01-02-19, 11:31
That's called authority without responsibility, and it breeds contempt.
But hey, Sheriff Dudley DoRight provided "excellent" leadership to his agency, so that makes it all OK for him to support disarming his subjects. :rolleyes:
The above is very true and every day I am thankful that I live in rather rural Texas.
We don't allow a lot of that BS to go on here, at least outside of Dallas, Austin and San Antonio where ironically a lot of people have moved to from both unfree coasts.
Look, discuss the fine points of the bill. We all know that disaster for lack of a better term is a disgrace to LE. This thread is going downhill fast. get back on track with it.
The main focus should be on attempts to get National Concealed Carry, a standard. If you attack the ability of LE to do it, you sure aren't going to be successful with NCC. The comments about tragedies and shooting ability are not contributing anything positive and have nothing to do with it.
Averageman
01-02-19, 11:35
Look, discuss the fine points of the bill. We all know that disaster for lack of a better term is a disgrace to LE. This thread is going downhill fast. get back on track with it.
The main focus should be on attempts to get National Concealed Carry, a standard. If you attack the ability of LE to do it, you sure aren't going to be successful with NCC. The comments about tragedies and shooting ability are not contributing anything positive and have nothing to do with it.
Any ability to get NCC is several years down the road. No matter how many folks listen to the Who, no one remembers the lyric, "We wont be fooled again." We could have successfully accomplished this anytime over the last two years, but Nancy isn't going to allow this to happen under her watch. Not a single bit of it.
I understand, it would be a big plus for it, maybe in time. The attack on LE for having this option (call it whatever) isn't going to help matters at all. Everyone needs to think about it. Everyone knows that the average LE is not anti gun rights, sure there are some, no different than the average Joe on the street. The administrators, the politicians, etc are the ones who need convincing. Referencing NJSP, thanks to leadership and the fed, everything they do is video and audio taped, every minute is reviewed. They will get called in when they do not do exactly what they have been told to do, put yourself in their shoes.
The last time I was in NJ, a pretty big group of LE didn't know, didn't care either as to the mag cap limit and fmj or HP for LE. NYPD has a rule, although word is yeah, right that even with creds, you are detained, disarmed until verification from the parent org shows current status. If the copper on the street did that is he bad for doing what he has been instructed to do? The comparison some will bring up about Nurmberg is not even close in case anyone goes there.
I’ll put it this way, if the law enforcement community gets comfortable with the free cheese mentality that they get national carry and no one else does; most won’t be trumpeting for anyone else. Most of your largest FOP and IACP enclaves are with larger departments in metropolitan areas who are headed by very political people.
You and I both know that a lot of these agency heads can be vindictive and nobody is going to throw away a livelihood for something like this. And anywhere that might not have such a culture is barred by policy and law to have a union.
I have a saying, please permit me to say it: For every solid officer who throws his badge away in disgust; there will always be some less than scrupulous person to snatch it up.
I’ll say this and will leave it be: LEOSA, as it stands, simply will not be the gateway for normal national reciprocity. And I doubt it can be spun as such. I would almost rather see it killed until someone can attach a “qualified persons” clauses not totally peculiar to sworn LE. THAT would be a foot in the door. Like...you weren’t a sworn officer but you have held a CHL for umpteen years and have no criminal history or upsets.
That alone, if it passed, would be the gateway.
Any ability to get NCC is several years down the road. No matter how many folks listen to the Who, no one remembers the lyric, "We wont be fooled again." We could have successfully accomplished this anytime over the last two years, but Nancy isn't going to allow this to happen under her watch. Not a single bit of it.
LEOSA has been on the books since 2004. Nancy wasn't in charge of squat several of the years since then.
I’ll put it this way, if the law enforcement community gets comfortable with the free cheese mentality that they get national carry and no one else does; most won’t be trumpeting for anyone else. Most of your largest FOP and IACP enclaves are with larger departments in metropolitan areas who are headed by very political people.
You and I both know that a lot of these agency heads can be vindictive and nobody is going to throw away a livelihood for something like this. And anywhere that might not have such a culture is barred by policy and law to have a union.
I have a saying, please permit me to say it: For every solid officer who throws his badge away in disgust; there will always be some less than scrupulous person to snatch it up.
I’ll say this and will leave it be: LEOSA, as it stands, simply will not be the gateway for normal national reciprocity. And I doubt it can be spun as such. I would almost rather see it killed until someone can attach a “qualified persons” clauses not totally peculiar to sworn LE. THAT would be a foot in the door. Like...you weren’t a sworn officer but you have held a CHL for umpteen years and have no criminal history or upsets.
That alone, if it passed, would be the gateway.
That is the jist of my earlier comment about skin in the game. Giving police exemptions on carry at the state level has never lead to LE en masse working to overturn anti carry laws, quite the opposite. Some true gems view it as a right and work to that end. The vast majority are indifferent, if not outright hostile, to carry being treated as a right rather than a privilege.
Taking the same path on the national level that has already proven to fail in state after state guarantees the majority officers in the latter category will not be a help in getting carry for the average person. Force them to hitch their wagon to the private citizen team and perhaps some of the latter group will begin pressuring their unions and associations to stop lobbying for more antigun laws while lobbying for repeals.
Averageman
01-02-19, 12:40
LEOSA has been on the books since 2004. Nancy wasn't in charge of squat several of the years since then.
My point exactly, obviously the GOP wants no part of any National Concealed Carry legislation.
Just like a lot of other Legislation, instead of doing what is right, they do what is politically expedient to get reelected. Power after all corrupts everyone who touches it too long. So it's pretty obvious to me that both the Democrats and the Republicans want the ability to disarm citizens rather than go with the original intent of the Constitution.
We've an Elitist Class of Legislators in this Country and no amount of voting is going to fix the problem with it.
Not at all, the banter provides no remedy or contribution to the points being discussed. There's no benefit to it.
Seems like that could be applied to many comments in this and other threads, yet they don't get erased. Oh well.
Check on it later, see how it plays out.
These professionals are i[B]n every community and have completed extensive and required training to properly handle a firearm.
Bwahahaha...... Seriously? There are officers that take firearms training seriously. There are many who are proficient, and many excellent. There are also a lot who shouldn’t be allowed to handle a cap gun. So their extensive training is a qualifier for rights that the average citizen is denied?
Please tell me I misunderstood the quoted text.
ETA: The Gov will never impose the same laws upon themselves as the citizenry. The Gov will always maintain superior firepower.
I understand, it would be a big plus for it, maybe in time. The attack on LE for having this option (call it whatever) isn't going to help matters at all. Everyone needs to think about it. Everyone knows that the average LE is not anti gun rights, sure there are some, no different than the average Joe on the street. The administrators, the politicians, etc are the ones who need convincing. Referencing NJSP, thanks to leadership and the fed, everything they do is video and audio taped, every minute is reviewed. They will get called in when they do not do exactly what they have been told to do, put yourself in their shoes.
The last time I was in NJ, a pretty big group of LE didn't know, didn't care either as to the mag cap limit and fmj or HP for LE. NYPD has a rule, although word is yeah, right that even with creds, you are detained, disarmed until verification from the parent org shows current status. If the copper on the street did that is he bad for doing what he has been instructed to do? The comparison some will bring up about Nurmberg is not even close in case anyone goes there.
First, it's not an "attack on LE". You can try to spin it that way, but you're wrong.
And I'll come out and say it, YES he is bad! If you're out there violating anyone's constitutional rights because you've been ordered to, YOU'RE STILL WRONG!!!
Doesn't matter whether it's an out of state LEO or a regular Joe with a CCW. If they have no criminal history, wants or warrants and they're otherwise abiding by the law, then let them go! If the brass reviews your recordings and says you're out of policy for not hanging paper on a good guy, tell them you're not in LE to make felons out of good people because of internal policy. If they don't want you wearing their badge anymore, then go work for a decent CLEO somewhere that doesn't want you to serve up McFelons every day for BS politics!
If you hang paper on good people to appease your masters, then you're bad. You can try to spin that any way you want, but it's not gonna sell on a gun forum. :(
Great point. Medical personnel can't legally work off duty in the majority of the states out there. And if you are a doctor and cross a state line you are just an average Joe, unless you hold a license there.
So why are LEOs different? Anyone care to venture a guess?
Depends on what kind of "medical personnel". Doesn't apply to nurses, of course. EMTs...only so far as whether or not they have a supervising physician. At work they automatically do. Off duty, they might be covered under their work protocols, but they may also have arranged someone else to cover them when not officially working. I personally cover two paramedics for work outside of their work, and at one time covered 8 paramedics for their volunteer work for the TAC Team or Bomb Squad.
As to doctors...not applicable. I can't legally "establish a patient-doctor relationship" and can't charge a fee in states where I'm not licensed, but especially in an emergency situation I can practice medicine when necessary and in fact am ethically (and maybe legally) obligated to do so. More important to the point of this discussion...I can legally use whatever tools are necessary to do that job in that situation and have no restrictions on possessing them or using them.
Depends on what kind of "medical personnel". Doesn't apply to nurses, of course. EMTs...only so far as whether or not they have a supervising physician. At work they automatically do. Off duty, they might be covered under their work protocols, but they may also have arranged someone else to cover them when not officially working. I personally cover two paramedics for work outside of their work, and at one time covered 8 paramedics for their volunteer work for the TAC Team or Bomb Squad.
As to doctors...not applicable. I can't legally "establish a patient-doctor relationship" and can't charge a fee in states where I'm not licensed, but especially in an emergency situation I can practice medicine when necessary and in fact am ethically (and maybe legally) obligated to do so. More important to the point of this discussion...I can legally use whatever tools are necessary to do that job in that situation and have no restrictions on possessing them or using them.
I said that is state my state. In NC a paramedic is not allowed to do basically anything is not on the clock.
As for being a Physician, check the local laws. There was a Military Doctor that got into some serious trouble for an emergency situation off post because he was not licensed in NC. It was not good at all.
The thing is if it's a standing law in that jurisdiction, the officer enforces it. You missed the NYPD comment "yeah, right" Using NJSP as an example, the option he has is to do his job or face disipline and repeated violations could result in dismissal. Until the law is struck down, the officer on the beat enforces it. If it's one of those things that he sends the guy on the way, no worries, a warning for a violation if permitted, sure why not.
The officer isn't "pleasing his masters" give me a break, again he is doing his job. You advocate the officer in a sense picking and choosing what laws to enforce. It's not a matter of internal policy, if it's a law violation, again what choice does the guy on the street have? Well if it's a misdemeanor and not a mandated shall arrest crime, sure give a warning if appropriate. If it's a felony violation the officer doesn't choose to ignore it, it is what it is. When I went to NJ, I didn't want to put anyone on the spot if it ended up being an issue so I carried 10 round mags and ball ammo.
It's not spin, some seem to have an agenda and there's alway an angle to stick it to the working cop.
Again, you have to get the laws changed to allow carry and be done with the restrictions put on people. You may disagree, but the way you approach it isn't helping matters. You may have not seen it above, but I do agree that the gun laws do not deter crime. For that matter for people intent on doing wrong will not care about the law. One can look at all laws, codes, etc. People speed, drive drunk, hit people, steal and do other bad things. The ones who have jobs, etc where they can loose generally abide by the laws.
So your comment about being bad is wrong. It's not right and you know it. I explained it above, hope it's clear enough.
First, it's not an "attack on LE". You can try to spin it that way, but you're wrong.
And I'll come out and say it, YES he is bad! If you're out there violating anyone's constitutional rights because you've been ordered to, YOU'RE STILL WRONG!!!
Doesn't matter whether it's an out of state LEO or a regular Joe with a CCW. If they have no criminal history, wants or warrants and they're otherwise abiding by the law, then let them go! If the brass reviews your recordings and says you're out of policy for not hanging paper on a good guy, tell them you're not in LE to make felons out of good people because of internal policy. If they don't want you wearing their badge anymore, then go work for a decent CLEO somewhere that doesn't want you to serve up McFelons every day for BS politics!
If you hang paper on good people to appease your masters, then you're bad. You can try to spin that any way you want, but it's not gonna sell on a gun forum. :(
The issue I had intended to raise when I mentioned medical personnel and EMS is that we are frequently subjected to the same people that law enforcement are subjected to working with in the field. If part of the argument on why law enforcement can carry concealed off duty is because they might encounter the population whom they see when they are in uniform, the exact same argument can be applied. We are frequently threatened, the amount of times I have been told someone was going to hunt me down or kill me or my family could fill two or three pages of paper. A dermatologist may not have the same threat as the trauma surgeon does who operates on a gang banger and then gets threatened by a rival gang.
The notion that law enforcement officers are on duty 24/7 in their jurisdiction is ridiculous, regardless if the law supports that position. Can you imagine the liability of an off-duty cop with his family who had two or three drinks trying to apprehend someone who's trying to rob the restaurant? I understand just my opinion, and with enough rationale and logic I could change my mind.
It's also stated in any GO that I have seen that if you have been consuming alcohol just be a good witness and do not handle a firearm. A neighboring PD used to be, not sure if still mandated to carry off duty.
The thing is if it's a standing law in that jurisdiction, the officer enforces it. You missed the NYPD comment "yeah, right" Using NJSP as an example, the option he has is to do his job or face disipline and repeated violations could result in dismissal. Until the law is struck down, the officer on the beat enforces it. If it's one of those things that he sends the guy on the way, no worries, a warning for a violation if permitted, sure why not.
The officer isn't "pleasing his masters" give me a break, again he is doing his job. You advocate the officer in a sense picking and choosing what laws to enforce. It's not a matter of internal policy, if it's a law violation, again what choice does the guy on the street have? Well if it's a misdemeanor and not a mandated shall arrest crime, sure give a warning if appropriate. If it's a felony violation the officer doesn't choose to ignore it, it is what it is. When I went to NJ, I didn't want to put anyone on the spot if it ended up being an issue so I carried 10 round mags and ball ammo.
It's not spin, some seem to have an agenda and there's alway an angle to stick it to the working cop.
Again, you have to get the laws changed to allow carry and be done with the restrictions put on people. You may disagree, but the way you approach it isn't helping matters. You may have not seen it above, but I do agree that the gun laws do not deter crime. For that matter for people intent on doing wrong will not care about the law. One can look at all laws, codes, etc. People speed, drive drunk, hit people, steal and do other bad things. The ones who have jobs, etc where they can loose generally abide by the laws.
So your comment about being bad is wrong. It's not right and you know it. I explained it above, hope it's clear enough.
You and I fundamentally disagree on policing. True, I've had the fortune of working in jurisdictions where we don't look at gun owners as the enemy, but even if I worked on one of those ridiculous states or cities, I would not enforce unconstitutional law. I do not agree with anyone who does and I certainly don't look at them as a "good guy". My morals and ethics are not for sale, not even for a .gov paycheck. In an unjust world, the thin blue line shtick wears exceptionally thin, "working" or not. I just don't care anymore.
I wouldn't step foot in NJ on a bet. I've yet to see a single letter from any NJ LEO union opposed to their draconian gun laws, except to say they should be special and exempt from them. So if they're not on my side, then I'm not on theirs. You don't have to like it, but your dislike doesn't invalidate those of us who feel that way. Your way of dealing with it puts decent people in prison with a felony record. My way of dealing with it is to jam up the agency and yes, the officer if necessary. If they don't care about us, why should we care about them?
Now you show me letters to politicians from Chiefs, Unions or officers from these Constitution-free zones opposing these vile laws and maybe I'll change my mind. Until then, no. Just. No. :(
I go to NJ or through it maybe 3 times a year. I do not wear a gun, it is packed away due to how stupid the laws and the cops are.
If I am in a normal state and an officer would need help with something up to getting in a gun fight you bet I am in 100%.
But in 3 east coast states I would just keep on driving. I feel they the police have folded a long time ago on their duty and they have to eat what they cook.
The last time I got stuck due to a late flight in JFK, the cops there were giddy because they thought they could arrest me for ammo in my checked luggage. I made a promise to myself to never fly through JFK again
yoni touched on something. Not every cop is "go team yay!". Some of these outfits up north or in chicago would love to make some kind of firearms charge because it gets them brownie points.
Like I have traveled through some strict places LEOSA on my side and I'm like "Yeah, naw". I keep a super low profile.
Just because of that culture.
The press release is poorly written in my opinion. I felt they tried to roll 3 entirely different scenarios into one.
Police officers who are off duty in their own jurisdictions should carry, with a few specific exceptions (drinking in a bar for example). To me that is a no brainer.
Police officers off duty outside their own jurisdictions? Different scenario entirely, and one of the reasons for this bill.
IMHO, that officer should be considered as having a concealed permit if their state/county/city allows concealed carry permits. They should also be allowed to carry wherever there is reciprocity for concealed carry. If their state/county/city doesn't allow concealed carry or have reciprocity, they should not be allowed to carry outside their jurisdiction.
Retired officers? Also a different scenario. I disagree with the press release here, because it implies that retired officers still have a duty to serve and protect. They have fullfilled their duty and that burden has been lifted from their shoulders.
Again IMHO, retired officers should receive free concealed carry permits for life and reciprocity if their jurisdiction allows them for private citizens. If not, they should not be allowed to carry. If their jurisdiction requires training to get a permit, that training requirement should be waived.
I would also say the bill should include provisions for active and retired Military to carry concealed as well. Didn't we swear an oath and receive firearms training? Aren't Servicemen Servicewomen known targets for terrorists?
Like I said, these are my opinions.
dwhitehorne
01-02-19, 18:36
So I can assume that you have never drank alcohol since going on duty? No I've never had a drop while carrying a firearm. So not don't drink very much when away from the house.
And the MIL is not always allowed to have their weapons on them 100% of the time overseas. And the MIL has extensive training and may items are issued also.
I have only been in a few countries where I got hazardous duty pay and that was in the late 80's. Everyone in the Company was armed the entire time we were in that country. I was not in the military when I visited Afghanistan but I was armed and every military person I saw had a weapon everywhere I went. I assumed it was the same in every area that draws combat pay. I've be out for 27 years though.
If you are required to respond all of the time how are you required to carry a radio all of the time? If you are not carrying a weapon are you legally required to respond? We are issued our individual radios. At one time if you were on Force jurisdiction you had to have your radio. That ended when cell phones became popular. The Force General Orders are administrative they do not have any legal binding requirement.
Considering another one of several reiterations from Broward County again, exactly what duty must (no if, and, but, or maybe) an officer engage in again?
First off, you are questioning my morality and ethics, you are wrong. You really need to take a step back on that one my friend. And actually, you should be apologizing here. You don't know me, some here do and I'm certain they would agree.
If there is a standing law and mandated that an officer shall arrest, then he is duty bound to enforce it. I'm certain your state has a code for malfeasance of office and provides for the prosecution and removal from office of the said individual. We can go through current and maybe past laws and say they are unconstitutional and do we just decide not to enforce if mandated and shall arrest policies are in place? You are missing somethings, I've said that if an officer has the discretion, sure, exercise it if appropriate. I've also said I'm for private ownership and carry for anyone who is not a prohibited person.
Not a gun issue but let me speak of another topic real quick. Virginia has a shall arrest for Domestic Assault by code and also mandated reporting of such. The element for the arrest are pretty simple as you would know. Now let's say it's a simple shoulder bump going down the hallway and the officer doesn't agree with the code to begin with and dam sure doesn't agree with making this arrest. How long to you think he will be employed for one and potentially charged depending on the outcome of that mistake?
I will also say that anytime an officer from outside the jurisdiction was ever charged with anything in my time, without a doubt was from his own making. The actions left no choice whatsoever.
I had to do it twice, one on a Domestic and with a Protective Order. Had to take the issued sidearm, it did make me feel bad inside, but it's the law and agree with it or not.
Reference the guns laws, I bet most if not mandated will not worry about any of this. Yes are there some who will go out of their way to enforce it, I'm certain there is. I would not be going out of my way for any of it but left with no choice, I would have to do my job.
You and I fundamentally disagree on policing. True, I've had the fortune of working in jurisdictions where we don't look at gun owners as the enemy, but even if I worked on one of those ridiculous states or cities, I would not enforce unconstitutional law. I do not agree with anyone who does and I certainly don't look at them as a "good guy". My morals and ethics are not for sale, not even for a .gov paycheck. In an unjust world, the thin blue line shtick wears exceptionally thin, "working" or not. I just don't care anymore.
I wouldn't step foot in NJ on a bet. I've yet to see a single letter from any NJ LEO union opposed to their draconian gun laws, except to say they should be special and exempt from them. So if they're not on my side, then I'm not on theirs. You don't have to like it, but your dislike doesn't invalidate those of us who feel that way. Your way of dealing with it puts decent people in prison with a felony record. My way of dealing with it is to jam up the agency and yes, the officer if necessary. If they don't care about us, why should we care about them?
Now you show me letters to politicians from Chiefs, Unions or officers from these Constitution-free zones opposing these vile laws and maybe I'll change my mind. Until then, no. Just. No. :(
First off, you are questioning my morality and ethics, you are wrong. You really need to take a step back on that one my friend. And actually, you should be apologizing here. You don't know me, some here do and I'm certain they would agree.
If there is a standing law and mandated that an officer shall arrest, then he is duty bound to enforce it. I'm certain your state has a code for malfeasance of office and provides for the prosecution and removal from office of the said individual. We can go through current and maybe past laws and say they are unconstitutional and do we just decide not to enforce if mandated and shall arrest policies are in place? You are missing somethings, I've said that if an officer has the discretion, sure, exercise it if appropriate. I've also said I'm for private ownership and carry for anyone who is not a prohibited person.
Not a gun issue but let me speak of another topic real quick. Virginia has a shall arrest for Domestic Assault by code and also mandated reporting of such. The element for the arrest are pretty simple as you would know. Now let's say it's a simple shoulder bump going down the hallway and the officer doesn't agree with the code to begin with and dam sure doesn't agree with making this arrest. How long to you think he will be employed for one and potentially charged depending on the outcome of that mistake?
I will also say that anytime an officer from outside the jurisdiction was ever charged with anything in my time, without a doubt was from his own making. The actions left no choice whatsoever.
I had to do it twice, one on a Domestic and with a Protective Order. Had to take the issued sidearm, it did make me feel bad inside, but it's the law and agree with it or not.
Reference the guns laws, I bet most if not mandated will not worry about any of this. Yes are there some who will go out of their way to enforce it, I'm certain there is. I would not be going out of my way for any of it but left with no choice, I would have to do my job.
I guess I’m confused, genuinely.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of our land. It is clear in stating what cannot be done.
2A is very clear as well. I don’t need to write it out on this forum.
So how is an oath taken to uphold that supreme law of the land/Constitution- reconciled with enforcing an unconstitutional law?
Wether given an order or not to enforce a law, if it is unconstitutional, you must break that oath and supreme law to enforce it.
The Constitution supersedes all other laws.
To say you can’t “pick and choose” which laws you enforce is disingenuous; picking to enforce unconstitutional laws and choosing to not uphold the supreme law of the land in the Constituion is literally picking and choosing which law to enforce and which to not enforce.
Not all Animals are created equal
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3165ac962419c6ad4b9c77b4c7e1189d
No Spill Blood
Oingo Boingo
Animals came from miles around
So tired of walking so close toe the ground
They needed a chance, that's what they said
Life is better walking on two legs
But they were in for a big surprise
'Cause they didn't know the law!
No spill blood
What is the law
(No spill blood)
Someone else
Who makes the rules
(Someone else)
The rules are written in the stone
Break the rules and you get no bones
All you get is ridicule, laughter
And a trip to the house of pain!
No spill blood
What is the law
(No spill blood)
We walk on two legs not on four
To walk on four legs breaks the law
What happens when we break the law?
What happens when the rules aren't fair?
We all know here we go from there
To the house of pain!
To the house of pain!
What is the law
Who makes the rules
We walk on two legs not on four
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
To the house of pain
(No spill blood)
I guess I’m confused, genuinely.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of our land. It is clear in stating what cannot be done.
2A is very clear as well. I don’t need to write it out on this forum.
So how is an oath taken to uphold that supreme law of the land/Constitution- reconciled with enforcing an unconstitutional law?
Wether given an order or not to enforce a law, if it is unconstitutional, you must break that oath and supreme law to enforce it.
The Constitution supersedes all other laws.
There would need to be challenges and the USSC overturn them. Until they do they are the law of the land(s) It's like any other laws that have been passed, challenged successfully or not. I do wish it was simple and there was no arguments over what it means and laws passed from that. You guys need to submit these ideas to legislaters, get them to submit bills, make change. Actually since some feel so strong about it, challenge it. Get an X5, stack those 21 rounders on your belt and hit the shore.
There would need to be challenges and the USSC overturn them. Until they do they are the law of the land(s) It's like any other laws that have been passed, challenged successfully or not. I do wish it was simple and there was no arguments over what it means and laws passed from that. You guys need to submit these ideas to legislaters, get them to submit bills, make change. Actually since some feel so strong about it, challenge it. Get an X5, stack those 21 rounders on your belt and hit the shore.
Okay. I’m going to posit an incredibly extreme scenario, but please play along as if this exact law was really passed and you were ordered to enforce it.
If a new law was put into affect and passed by a legislature that all privately held firearms were illegal and anyone found with a firearm was to be arrested, all firearms to be confiscated and if they didn’t comply they are to be shot on the spot- should that law need to be followed and enforced prior to a SCOTUS challenge?
Dude, that is so far out there, I won't even humor "it" It's kinda of funny in a sense of the doomsday scenario's presented.
Okay. I’m going to posit an incredibly extreme scenario, but please play along as if this exact law was really passed and you were ordered to enforce it.
If a new law was put into affect and passed by a legislature that all privately held firearms were illegal and anyone found with a firearm was to be arrested, all firearms to be confiscated and if they didn’t comply they are to be shot on the spot- should that law need to be followed and enforced prior to a SCOTUS challenge?
Dude, that is so far out there, I won't even humor "it" It's kinda of funny in a sense of the doomsday scenario's presented.
Is it really that far out there? Given the way politics are now? A vindictive socialist gov,( dem pres, house, and senate) responding to another school shooting could pass such legislation. Firearms were confiscated during Katrina. Those officers certainly had no qualms with disarming citizens.
I respect you for stating that you will enforce laws you may not agree with.
Dude, that is so far out there, I won't even humor "it" It's kinda of funny in a sense of the doomsday scenario's presented.
I absolutely realize that, Mark. I prefaced the whole thing as such and that’s why I asked you to play along with such rediculousness.
There’s a very valid and fundamental point to be made from that extreme “far out there” scenario; sometimes an extreme example is needed to drive the point home, in my opinion.
The picking and choosing is happening already, unconstitutional laws are being enforced over following the Constituion and supreme law of the land. And Rights are being watered down into permissions.
One can color it as “following orders”, or enforcing the laws on the books or SCOTUS “says” or “hasn’t said”... but it’s still all the same.
Sure, it’s just outlawing a 21 round magazine, or making it unlawful to bear arms without permission from the State, illegal to possess an SBR without a tax and permission from the state, etc- and it’s not total illegalization of all firearms with confiscation.
But it still is what it is fundamentally.
An infringement is an infringement and we either have Rights or we don’t.
SCOTUS doesn’t even have the right to judicial review per the Constitution; they just usurped it.
And let me add in conclusion- not that long ago the thought of bearing ones arms being made illegal was “far out there”. The thought of having to register yourself to own certain types of arms and others being outlawed outright was “far out there”. Yet here we are.
Each time an unconstitutional law is followed or enforced, a new one comes along or is expanded and far out there becomes reality.
Not seeing how that is that far out there considering the continuing efforts in banning firearms and how non-compliance with laws frequently leads to physical injury up to and including death.
I absolutely realize that, Mark. I prefaced the whole thing as such and that’s why I asked you to play along with such rediculiusness.
There’s a very valid and fundamental point to be made from that extreme “far out there” scenario; sometimes an extreme example is needed to drive the point home, in my opinion.
The picking and choosing is happening already, unconstitutional laws are being enforced over following the Constituion and supreme law of the land.
One can color it as “following orders”, or enforcing the laws on the books or SCOTUS “says” or “hasn’t said”... but it’s still all the same.
Sure, it’s just outlawing a 21 round magazine, or making it unlawful to bear arms without permission from the State, illegal to possess an SBR without a tax and permission from the state, etc- and it’s not total illegalization of all firearms with confiscation.
But it still is what it is fundamentally.
An infringement is an infringement and we either have Rights or we don’t.
SCOTUS doesn’t even have the right to judicial review per the Constitution; they just usurped it.
Damn, Dude, I'll be your forensics instructor loved you.
The 'shoot them on the spot if they don't comply' flies in the face of so many SCOTUS decisions as to be morally indefensible, regardless of your beliefs regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Likewise, even if you know nothing about use-of-force law, such actions as so far beyond the pale that they would result in the civil war that some here seem to be clamoring for.
Everyone in these arguments seems to forget the great strides that have been made in gun rights in the last thirty, heck, ten years:
In 1986 there was 1 Constitutional Carry state (Vermont); 8 shall-issue states; 25 may-issue states; 16 no-issue states.
In 1996 there was 1 constitutional-carry; 30 shall-issue, 12 may-issue; and 7 no-issue.
In 2006 there were 2 constitutional-carry (Vermont and Alaska); 37 shall-issue; 9 may-issue; and 2 no-issue (Wisconsin and Illinois).
Today, there are 13 constitutional-carry states; 29 shall-issue (constitutional-carry dropped this number); 8 may-issue (Cali, Hawaii, NY, MA, NJ, Delaware, RI, Maryland) and 0 no-issue states.
Things have vastly improved, here is a portion of an article from Smithsonian Magazine:
Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.
Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.
The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Winkler, in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”
Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry.
Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.
“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns , for the most part,” says Winkler. “Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”
Published in 1903, Andy Adams’s Log of a Cowboy, a “slightly fictionalized” account of the author’s life on the cattle trails of the 1880s, was a refutation against the myth-making dime store novels of the day. The book, which included stories about lawless cowboys visiting Dodge City firing into the air to shoot out lights, has been called the most realistic written account of cowboy life and is still in print today.
Adams wrote of what happened to the few who wouldn't comply with frontier gun law:
[I]
“The buffalo hunters and range men have protested against the iron rule of Dodge's peace officers, and nearly every protest has cost human life. … Most cowboys think it's an infringement on their rights to give up shooting in town, and if it is, it stands, for your six-shooters are no match for Winchesters and buckshot; and Dodge's officers are as game a set of men as ever faced danger.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/#9ih1PFh0gx2fTTcf.99
First off, you are questioning my morality and ethics, you are wrong. You really need to take a step back on that one my friend. And actually, you should be apologizing here. You don't know me, some here do and I'm certain they would agree.
If there is a standing law and mandated that an officer shall arrest, then he is duty bound to enforce it. I'm certain your state has a code for malfeasance of office and provides for the prosecution and removal from office of the said individual. We can go through current and maybe past laws and say they are unconstitutional and do we just decide not to enforce if mandated and shall arrest policies are in place? You are missing somethings, I've said that if an officer has the discretion, sure, exercise it if appropriate. I've also said I'm for private ownership and carry for anyone who is not a prohibited person.
Not a gun issue but let me speak of another topic real quick. Virginia has a shall arrest for Domestic Assault by code and also mandated reporting of such. The element for the arrest are pretty simple as you would know. Now let's say it's a simple shoulder bump going down the hallway and the officer doesn't agree with the code to begin with and dam sure doesn't agree with making this arrest. How long to you think he will be employed for one and potentially charged depending on the outcome of that mistake?
I will also say that anytime an officer from outside the jurisdiction was ever charged with anything in my time, without a doubt was from his own making. The actions left no choice whatsoever.
I had to do it twice, one on a Domestic and with a Protective Order. Had to take the issued sidearm, it did make me feel bad inside, but it's the law and agree with it or not.
Reference the guns laws, I bet most if not mandated will not worry about any of this. Yes are there some who will go out of their way to enforce it, I'm certain there is. I would not be going out of my way for any of it but left with no choice, I would have to do my job.
First, you’re not in the states I listed as openly hostile to gun owners. Second, I never said “you”, I said they. So I don’t owe you an apology. I don’t owe anyone any apologies. There is no right in the Constitution to assault anyone or beat your wife, so your examples are red herrings. Further, I specifically stated otherwise law abiding. Precursor crimes (and I’m not including a simple traffic violation), throw the “otherwise law abiding” out the window. Using a simple traffic violation to go on a fishing expedition on an out of state tag so you can make a McFelon is very specifically what I’m discussing.
It seems to me (and I’m holding out the hope that I’m wrong) you’re taking this thread WAY too personally. You went out of your way to accuse anyone disagreeing with you of attacking law enforcement. You’re misrepresenting what I’ve written to include trains of thought I never made. You’re assuming I’m attacking you personally. You are wrong.
As a matter of fact, if anything you owe me and others in this thread an apology. So if any of this fits, own it and stop making assumptions. And again if you have any evidence whatsoever that LE organizations in those or even your state (especially NOVA) have openly opposed this scurrilous discrimination against law abiding gun owners, post it.
I want to be on your side, but you’re not making it easy. :(
Shit, I’m LE and I think a lot of what goes down in the community is BS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I arrested a guy and put him away for 35 years. I moved back to Israel had a career, retired, moved back to the USA.
I ran into this guy in the grocery store, he had just got out of the pen. He confronted me.
I was carrying a gun, so I just smiled and called him by his name and I told him I was no longer a deputy so I was not under the restrictions that I once was under. That if he ever approved me again, I would consider it a threat on my life and I would shoot him.
For all of you that think we should be under the same stupid laws as you have allowed to be passed in your state. I will beg to differ. If I had the same confrontation in an other state where pre LEOSA I could carry, it might have turned out different.
If you don't like your laws in your state work to change them. But thank G-D some people that pass laws understand the risks that come with the job and don't want to leave us out in the cold.
If you don't understand this, then it is your problem.
I have had the honor to wear a uniform in both my countries and think my willingness and that of every other cops to put their life on the line to protect others deserves us being able to protect ourselves nation wide.
I want to state restrictions on law abiding citizens, piss me off to no end. The same way cops in a few states piss me off.
Damn, Dude, I'll be your forensics instructor loved you. Sure, why not.
The 'shoot them on the spot if they don't comply' flies in the face of so many SCOTUS decisions as to be morally indefensible, regardless of your beliefs regarding the 2nd Amendment.
If we ever get to confiscation- will LEO’s et al who go to conduct such confiscations ask nicely and then leave if there is no compliance?
Likewise, even if you know nothing about use-of-force law, such actions as so far beyond the pale that they would result in the civil war that some here seem to be clamoring for.
Yes they would and for good reason. I’m definitely not clamoring for such to occur.
Everyone in these arguments seems to forget the great strides that have been made in gun rights in the last thirty, heck, ten years:
In 1986 there was 1 Constitutional Carry state (Vermont); 8 shall-issue states; 25 may-issue states; 16 no-issue states.
In 1996 there was 1 constitutional-carry; 30 shall-issue, 12 may-issue; and 7 no-issue.
In 2006 there were 2 constitutional-carry (Vermont and Alaska); 37 shall-issue; 9 may-issue; and 2 no-issue (Wisconsin and Illinois).
Today, there are 13 constitutional-carry states; 29 shall-issue (constitutional-carry dropped this number); 8 may-issue (Cali, Hawaii, NY, MA, NJ, Delaware, RI, Maryland) and 0 no-issue states.
Things have vastly improved, here is a portion of an article from Smithsonian Magazine:
Yes, they have improved slightly in some regards and not so much in other ways. But let’s be honest here- before the end of the civil war there was basically ZERO gun control laws on the books, the laws on the books were mostly to keep slaves from owning guns.. After the civil war- well, most gun control for the next 50+ years was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of freed blacks or used to keep political power in the hands of the few and control political rivals.
.
Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.
greater Research into the Tombstone laws leads to and understanding of what the aim was, keeping political opponents out of power and controlling people. There were 5 deaths in the year leading up to ordinance #9, 3 of them gun deaths. It was selectively enforced BS and the EXACT same crap I’m talking about. If you were friends of Virgil Earp and company, you could carry and walk free, if you weren’t, you could end up dead or in jail.
Doc Holiday is a prime example. He was known to carry a S&W #3, but was on the up and up with the Earps- so he got a pass. The majority of the town and it’s visitors still carried concealed anywayso
Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
Again all of these anti gun Wild West laws you cite (which there were very few) was selectively enforced and very short lived. Mostly aimed at keeping political rivals under control and at bay.
Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.
The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. While a few citizens challenged the bans in court, most lost. Winkler, in his book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”
Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry.
Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.
“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns , for the most part,” says Winkler. “Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”
Published in 1903, Andy Adams’s Log of a Cowboy, a “slightly fictionalized” account of the author’s life on the cattle trails of the 1880s, was a refutation against the myth-making dime store novels of the day. The book, which included stories about lawless cowboys visiting Dodge City firing into the air to shoot out lights, has been called the most realistic written account of cowboy life and is still in print today.
Adams wrote of what happened to the few who wouldn't comply with frontier gun law:
[I]
“The buffalo hunters and range men have protested against the iron rule of Dodge's peace officers, and nearly every protest has cost human life. … Most cowboys think it's an infringement on their rights to give up shooting in town, and if it is, it stands, for your six-shooters are no match for Winchesters and buckshot; and Dodge's officers are as game a set of men as ever faced danger.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/#9ih1PFh0gx2fTTcf.99
See my responses in bold. The laws you cite were few and far between, selectively enforced and mostly aimed at keeping guns from slaves, and then free blacks or keeping political rivals under control.
All of which is a good reason to not have those laws...
I’ve debated these arguments before and they fall short of providing any relevant or significant justification for any other anti gun laws of the past or of today.
I arrested a guy and put him away for 35 years. I moved back to Israel had a career, retired, moved back to the USA.
I ran into this guy in the grocery store, he had just got out of the pen. He confronted me.
I was carrying a gun, so I just smiled and called him by his name and I told him I was no longer a deputy so I was not under the restrictions that I once was under. That if he ever approved me again, I would consider it a threat on my life and I would shoot him.
For all of you that think we should be under the same stupid laws as you have allowed to be passed in your state. I will beg to differ. If I had the same confrontation in an other state where pre LEOSA I could carry, it might have turned out different.
If you don't like your laws in your state work to change them. But thank G-D some people that pass laws understand the risks that come with the job and don't want to leave us out in the cold.
If you don't understand this, then it is your problem.
I have had the honor to wear a uniform in both my countries and think my willingness and that of every other cops to put their life on the line to protect others deserves us being able to protect ourselves nation wide.
I want to state restrictions on law abiding citizens, piss me off to no end. The same way cops in a few states piss me off.
I can absolutely see why and agree, LEO’s should be able to defend themselves as they see fit regardless of what state they are in-but I still do not believe in creating separate classes with separate rules. It’s wrong. Anyone and everyone should have the same ability to defend themselves.
I hope we ALL get our Rights back. Not just a few of us.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-03-19, 01:19
Cops are citizens and civilians and should have to follow the firearms laws when off duty. Big city cop unions and chiefs are often in support of anti-gun legislation, especially when it excludes cops.
Cops don't deserve the right to protect themselves or their families anymore than anyone else does. Period. Just because you put someone away for 35 years an made an enemy doesn't mean anymore than the enemy Chad made in a hostile business takeover, or the enemy Steve made in traffic this morning.
Follow the laws, and work to change them.
ramairthree
01-03-19, 01:29
When you have an actual legal obligation to defend me and other citizens when off or on duty let me know.
I am in the weird position of having more training than someone besides an actual CAG/ST6 operator or CIF guy, ran around semi permissible environments playing face on the A Team while under armed, ran around on target with the varsity teams in combat zones, while on record here lambasting certain LEOs as total ass clowns while other LEOs defended them, and praising or defending LEOs in certain situations while some LEOs were cool with castrating and hanging them.
The quality density in terms of intelligence, physical capability, successfully passed graded courses vs “completion” of non graded training, and other intangible factors washing out over 50% of active military males during pipelines of LE is not anywhere near that of SOF military personnel-
And the courts you have no legal obligation to pretext me.
With no offense intended to some great Americans in LE, you are armed to defend yourself, and my opinion is you should be armed IAW what is legal for the non LE civilians in your AO. No exceptions. Then maybe your politicians, I mean no street time ball juggling chiefs will get with the program and stop backing gun control and bans.
greater Research into the Tombstone laws leads to and understanding of what the aim was, keeping political opponents out of power and controlling people. There were 5 deaths in the year leading up to ordinance #9, 3 of them gun deaths. It was selectively enforced BS and the EXACT same crap I’m talking about. If you were friends of Virgil Earp and company, you could carry and walk free, if you weren’t, you could end up dead or in jail.
Doc Holiday is a prime example. He was known to carry a S&W #3, but was on the up and up with the Earps- so he got a pass. The majority of the town and it’s visitors still carried concealed anywayso
The gun banners of Tombstone were also republicans.
https://youtu.be/Oj4M74_9z5Q
I don't think anyone is saying that LE should not be allowed to carry off duty but the right to carry should extend to all citizens, not just a select few.
sundance435
01-03-19, 08:41
I've been in LE, have family in LE, but I agree with those that are saying "same laws off duty". Any argument to the contrary is pretty thinly reasoned. Many of us have made the same kind "enemies" in our lives, but it doesn't entitle us to different treatment under the law as it stands. I've fired people who were more apt to stalk and kill me than anyone I or a family member ever arrested. I'll grant you that guys that carry off duty are probably more likely to be gun guys, but I don't see how that matters in the slightest.
Scot Peterson of Parkland infamy would qualify to carry under the provisions of LEOSA, though if he decides to avail himself, it's probably for different reasons now. Yeah, it's one example, but why does he deserve special consideration? Us civilians are uniformly held to the same BS gun control laws, yet Scot Peterson isn't.
I arrested a guy and put him away for 35 years. I moved back to Israel had a career, retired, moved back to the USA.
I ran into this guy in the grocery store, he had just got out of the pen. He confronted me.
I was carrying a gun, so I just smiled and called him by his name and I told him I was no longer a deputy so I was not under the restrictions that I once was under. That if he ever approved me again, I would consider it a threat on my life and I would shoot him.
For all of you that think we should be under the same stupid laws as you have allowed to be passed in your state. I will beg to differ. If I had the same confrontation in an other state where pre LEOSA I could carry, it might have turned out different.
If you don't like your laws in your state work to change them. But thank G-D some people that pass laws understand the risks that come with the job and don't want to leave us out in the cold.
If you don't understand this, then it is your problem.
I have had the honor to wear a uniform in both my countries and think my willingness and that of every other cops to put their life on the line to protect others deserves us being able to protect ourselves nation wide.
I want to state restrictions on law abiding citizens, piss me off to no end. The same way cops in a few states piss me off.
You good Sir, get it. Thank you for your service to us all.
I arrested a guy and put him away for 35 years. I moved back to Israel had a career, retired, moved back to the USA.
I ran into this guy in the grocery store, he had just got out of the pen. He confronted me.
I was carrying a gun, so I just smiled and called him by his name and I told him I was no longer a deputy so I was not under the restrictions that I once was under. That if he ever approved me again, I would consider it a threat on my life and I would shoot him.
For all of you that think we should be under the same stupid laws as you have allowed to be passed in your state. I will beg to differ. If I had the same confrontation in an other state where pre LEOSA I could carry, it might have turned out different.
If you don't like your laws in your state work to change them. But thank G-D some people that pass laws understand the risks that come with the job and don't want to leave us out in the cold.
If you don't understand this, then it is your problem. I completely understand that you think that you are in some way special and deserve more than others.
I have had the honor to wear a uniform in both my countries and think my willingness and that of every other cops to put their life on the line to protect others deserves us being able to protect ourselves nation wide.
I want to state restrictions on law abiding citizens, piss me off to no end. The same way cops in a few states piss me off.
Was everyone else allowed to carry a gun? If not then you should no be able to either. That is the point. If he was a threat to you then he was also a threat to others. You have no greater right to protect yourself then anyone else. Laws that allow FORMER COPS to carry and not everyone else is setting up a privileged class and might as well be the New JIM CROW Laws. Those laws took the black peoples right to protect themselves away. Is that what you are advocating for? Or is it like the Nazi Gun control act of 1938 that allowed only members of the NAZI Party to own guns and not Jews.
Please tell me how this is any different for those in NY, CA, NJ.......etc?
I arrested a guy and put him away for 35 years. I moved back to Israel had a career, retired, moved back to the USA.
I ran into this guy in the grocery store, he had just got out of the pen. He confronted me.
I was carrying a gun, so I just smiled and called him by his name and I told him I was no longer a deputy so I was not under the restrictions that I once was under. That if he ever approved me again, I would consider it a threat on my life and I would shoot him.
For all of you that think we should be under the same stupid laws as you have allowed to be passed in your state. I will beg to differ. If I had the same confrontation in an other state where pre LEOSA I could carry, it might have turned out different.
If you don't like your laws in your state work to change them. But thank G-D some people that pass laws understand the risks that come with the job and don't want to leave us out in the cold.
If you don't understand this, then it is your problem.
I have had the honor to wear a uniform in both my countries and think my willingness and that of every other cops to put their life on the line to protect others deserves us being able to protect ourselves nation wide.
I want to state restrictions on law abiding citizens, piss me off to no end. The same way cops in a few states piss me off.
Deleted.... Docsherm said it better than I.
Who I would attach to a New Deal LEOSA:
-Active Military Personnel or those discharged under HONORABLE
-Rape/Child Molestation victims
-Anyone who with a confirmed stalker and against said stalker a Peace Bond or Protective Order was issued
-The Elderly
-The handicapped
-Anyone actively involved in Interstate travel shipping sensitive items (e.g. Firearms, large sums of money, valuables)
-Persons who do not reside in, but actively travel to, high crime index areas for business
Allow those people or it dies and police go back to being beholden to the laws of the states they travel to save for the immunities granted to all citizens under the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986.
I know it will be cited as "not relevant" but the police, as a whole, do not have some Jedi ability to wield a firearm. I've been there on many and many a qual day over the years. And all I can say is "yikes". And the legal training is, and it is quite relevant to say this, a total non-issue. All states have different codified laws.
Those that fail to see this is a speedbump towards national reciprocity as opposed to a pathway are kind of not seeing the whole scene.
It's been 14 years on the books. If it has not happened yet as it stands then it never will.
Really? Quit posturing for the internet, use some common sense and think about it.
If you can't come up with a couple of reasons why someone who is sent to volatile situations might ought to be allowed to carrying a firearm when they aren't working, let me know I'll help you out.
Here is the flip side, if there is no duty to act, why is there preferential treatment? There are two sides to the coin. However, the flip side to "duty to act" requires not having sanctions against an officer if he hurts a member of the publics feelings.
As a cop, I understand that gun laws against LEO are obscene when the criminals don't worry about laws. However, those same elected persons need to grasp the concept that criminals don't worry about the laws for ANYONE, not just against cops.
Here is the flip side, if there is no duty to act, why is there preferential treatment? There are two sides to the coin. However, the flip side to "duty to act" requires not having sanctions against an officer if he hurts a member of the publics feelings.
As a cop, I understand that gun laws against LEO are obscene when the criminals don't worry about laws. However, those same elected persons need to grasp the concept that criminals don't worry about the laws for ANYONE, not just against cops.
Stick just hit the nail on the head. Well said.
Damn, Dude, I'll be your forensics instructor loved you. Sure, why not.
THCDDM - That was actually meant as a compliment. You would be a hard walnut to crack in a debate.
Here is the flip side, if there is no duty to act, why is there preferential treatment?
Have you ever been confronted off-duty? Have you ever been standing in line at the drycleaner's or the grocery store and had some one ask you 'so, what went on last night?' and then say 'you're a cop, right? I've seen you around.' I have.
Trust me, I get that other folks have folks mad at them, honestly. But the difference is that the police officer is sent into those situations. While it is true that none of us were drafted to be LEO's, that is a distinct difference.
If you think about it, anyone can take advantage of LEOSA. Simply by keeping their record clean, passing the backgrounds, physicals, and psychologicals and then going through the training to become a police officer. Of course, not all choose to do that. Just as not all choose to serve in the armed forces, and get their panties in a wad if you ask why.
So what's next. everybody gets to join the VFW?
As a cop, I understand that gun laws against LEO are obscene when the criminals don't worry about laws. However, those same elected persons need to grasp the concept that criminals don't worry about the laws for ANYONE, not just against cops.
Annnd, if it matters, I believe Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land. But, even with that, you've got someone bitching about felons or schizophrenics not being able to carry.
I think it's interesting that almost all on this site have some of the same thoughts on CCW and second amendment rights. People frequently tell some of the LEO's not to take it personally but they are doing what we as gun owners all hate, being lumped into the worst examples that can be found like the Florida Deputy. As gun owners we don't appreciate being lumped in with the Las Vegas shooter either. Most of us had nothing to do with the passage or enforcement of the LEOSA. Many have stated that we should all have the same rights. Then they get asked the nuclear question, would you enforce an extreme confiscation law? That's going to be taken hard as a protector, a citizen that's trying to serve others.
FWIW around here we have pretty much the same rights as any citizen with an exception of carrying in local government buildings like courthouses or police departments. That includes open carry or CCW. Maybe that's why I've never had the local people I serve question me like some on here would. Being somewhat rural we're fortunate in that's assumed we would not participate in any extreme enforcement, which we wouldn't. And yes I get to make that choice. I truly feel for those that live in socialist states, which is why I left CA 35 years ago. I believe that more extreme gun control legislation will be at the state levels in the future. So far nationally that's what happened. When I travel I take my ID and my weapon but my Wife, Son, Daughter, and I all have CCW's as well. Redundancy is good.
We were the agency that till the requirement was removed signed as the CLEO for all Class III. I would ask that some of you keep in mind that many here are your allies and support equal rights for all and have served as many of you in both the military and LEO. We find the current laws in many states repugnant. To me it's all service, and I take both of my oaths equally seriously.
People frequently tell some of the LEO's not to take it personally but they are doing what we as gun owners all hate, being lumped into the worst examples that can be found like the Florida Deputy. As gun owners we don't appreciate being lumped in with the Las Vegas shooter either.
I don't think I have heard any private citizen firearms owners defend the actions of Stephen Paddock or do anything indicating they would have assisted him in anyway.
I don't think I have heard any private citizen firearms owners defend the actions of Stephen Paddock or do anything indicating they would have assisted him in anyway.
Did I say that? Keep at it.......
Here’s the point, NO ONE should get special treatment. Equality under the law. Be bound by the laws you are paid to enforce. If you feel you should be the exception, you’re part of the problem.
Did I say that? Keep at it.......
You brought it up. There is nothing linking your average gun owner to Paddock.
Seen plenty of nefarious actions committed by LE with plenty other LE trying to justify their actions.
Why do I get linked to Paddock while every LE gets linked to some cop that died saving someone?
Here’s the point, NO ONE should get special treatment. Equality under the law. Be bound by the laws you are paid to enforce. If you feel you should be the exception, you’re part of the problem.
Precisely.
You brought it up. There is nothing linking your average gun owner to Paddock.
Seen plenty of nefarious actions committed by LE with plenty other LE trying to justify their actions.
That still has nothing to do with what I posted. Reading is fundamental. You're like a squirrel after a nut.
That still has nothing to do with what I posted. Reading is fundamental. You're like a squirrel after a nut.
I don't want either of us to receive special treatment. Why do you?
I don't want either of us to receive special treatment. Why do you?
Wow, did you bother to read my post? How did you come to that conclusion? I went back and re read it and don't see where I suggested I thought special treatment was in order. I never hinted at it. I suppose some people will see what they want and make up the rest. I'm out.
Why doesn't the guy who changed careers after 9.5 years get to be in your club? I'm sure he runs into people he had interactions with as a cop.
The VFW doesn't exempt anyone from any laws, seems like poor example to compare to your club. I've been identifiable as military out of uniform and mad dogged by a group of middle eastern men once.
Two important points that I want to make perfectly clear.
1) For me and probably most of us here that oppose LEOSA. It is a position completely
based on principle and completely separate from my feelings about LE. When LE take it personally that affirms our belief that separate laws for LE create classes or an "us vs them" mentality.
2) I do not believe that you can separate supporting LEOSA from anti gun policy. It perpetuates the anti gun myth that only the government or those the government deems worthy can be trusted with a firearm. LE organization's that support LEOSA are also supporting that anti gun narrative. No way around it, individual support for CCW reciprocity on a gun forum is not what the rest of the Country sees.
Wow, did you bother to read my post? How did you come to that conclusion? I went back and re read it and don't see where I suggested I thought special treatment was in order. I never hinted at it. I suppose some people will see what they want and make up the rest. I'm out.
Perhaps I misunderstood the linking Paddock and Peterson angles. Peterson in this thread isn't really about Peterson only, but the whole no duty to protect while on the clock bit which is nothing new and applies to all LE.
Why doesn't the guy who changed careers after 9.5 years get to be in your club? I'm sure he runs into people he had interactions with as a cop.
The VFW doesn't exempt anyone from any laws, seems like poor example to compare to your club. I've been identifiable as military out of uniform and mad dogged by a group of middle eastern men once.
Two important points that I want to make perfectly clear.
1) For me and probably most of us here that oppose LEOSA. It is a position completely
based on principle and completely separate from my feelings about LE. When LE take it personally that affirms our belief that separate laws for LE create classes or an "us vs them" mentality.
2) I do not believe that you can separate supporting LEOSA from anti gun policy. It perpetuates the anti gun myth that only the government or those the government deems worthy can be trusted with a firearm. LE organization's that support LEOSA are also supporting that anti gun narrative. No way around it, individual support for CCW reciprocity on a gun forum is not what the rest of the Country sees.
Well said.
National concealed carry scares me, because it will end up getting a bunch of negative provisions added. Things like making it illegal to carry in private establishments that post the “no guns” sign. And other restrictions that many states don’t have to contend with.
Annnd, if it matters, I believe Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land. But, even with that, you've got someone bitching about felons or schizophrenics not being able to carry.
Quoted from your post : “So what's next. everybody gets to join the VFW“
There is no amendment to the constitution stating a right to join the VFW shall not be infringed...
It’s a straw man argument.
2A is succinct and clear. All the jibber jabber cutting it’s legs off is complete BS. Any “law” infringing on the individual right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and wrong.
The SCOTUS usurping powers they were never granted effectively castrating 2A, and most other Rights- is unconstitutional and wrong.
I think it's interesting that almost all on this site have some of the same thoughts on CCW and second amendment rights. People frequently tell some of the LEO's not to take it personally but they are doing what we as gun owners all hate, being lumped into the worst examples that can be found like the Florida Deputy. As gun owners we don't appreciate being lumped in with the Las Vegas shooter either. Most of us had nothing to do with the passage or enforcement of the LEOSA. Many have stated that we should all have the same rights. Then they get asked the nuclear question, would you enforce an extreme confiscation law? That's going to be taken hard as a protector, a citizen that's trying to serve others.
FWIW around here we have pretty much the same rights as any citizen with an exception of carrying in local government buildings like courthouses or police departments. That includes open carry or CCW. Maybe that's why I've never had the local people I serve question me like some on here would. Being somewhat rural we're fortunate in that's assumed we would not participate in any extreme enforcement, which we wouldn't. And yes I get to make that choice. I truly feel for those that live in socialist states, which is why I left CA 35 years ago. I believe that more extreme gun control legislation will be at the state levels in the future. So far nationally that's what happened. When I travel I take my ID and my weapon but my Wife, Son, Daughter, and I all have CCW's as well. Redundancy is good.
We were the agency that till the requirement was removed signed as the CLEO for all Class III. I would ask that some of you keep in mind that many here are your allies and support equal rights for all and have served as many of you in both the military and LEO. We find the current laws in many states repugnant. To me it's all service, and I take both of my oaths equally seriously.
“Pretty much the same rights”. Is another way of saying/ Different rights...
Separate classes of citizens with separate rules is straight up unamerican, wrong and Runs counter to the idea of liberty.
It’s amazing to me I have to point this out, over and over again; to people on M4C...
Edited original post as you replied to me wondering why I didn’t discuss each of your posts. ETA:
I’m not lumping any LEO together in a negative fashion. I’m also not trying to separate LEO from other citizens via what rules should apply.
I applaud you taking your oaths seriously, as all who take an oath should.
I asked the question to Mark as a way of driving a point home in an extreme scenario. I’ll break it down...
No matter how unconstitutional a law may be- eg, if it’s simply enforcing an SBR law say versus confiscating a firearm outright- they are both unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. The picking and choosing is happening already.
Sure an SBR law isn’t quite as repugnant as full on confiscation. But fundamentally they are both infringements.
My point is this- why would you enforce ANY unconstitutional law? No matter how “small” the infringement is?
And how can one claim and use as a defense “I can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce” when you have to pick between the Constituion/supreme law and some BS SBR or high cap limit law?
ramairthree
01-03-19, 23:48
Most people here that are non LE can look at someone here in LE with the exact same background and vice versa.
While it is impossible to not get on the nerves with each other, most are bringing up some pretty valid discussion.
While some LEOs here may have spent 20 plus years serving high risk warrants on some pretty dangerous dudes that are back on the streets, some spent that time rounding up drunk college students, giving soccer moms speeding tickets in the burbs, logging in evidence, pushing paper, doing forensic accounting, or inspecting cargo containers. With most somehere in the middle.
Several non LE paramedics, pharmacists, repo men, physicians, building inspectors, cable guys, and hundreds of other means of employment people have pissed off tons of dangerous people as well, cutting off their TV, power, narcotics prescriptions, means of transportation, etc.
It’s not that I don’t think retired LEOS should have the right to carry. It’s that I don’t think they should have a right their fellow civilian or military sane, tax paying, non criminal citizens don’t have.
If you are that officer down crawling behind your cruiser taking fire from a carload of savages I am going to slam on my brakes, pull my SUV in front of you, dump a pistol mag at them, grab my Carbine, jump out on your side of my vehicle, give a 5 second message on your handset, throw a CAT on you, then dump 5.56 into each of those fukers one fast trigger pull at a time until they go down.
Then if you need mouth to mouth and chest compressions until the ambulance shows up I will do it. I have pumped lead into savages before. I have tried and failed or tried and succeeded to save people before. I have exposed myself to fire or suicide belts / stacked into a room to get to a wounded buddy before, while older, slower, weaker, fatter, and less eagle eyed I figure I’m still up for doing it again.
Am I somebody you are cool with having no right to carry?
Will you roll me up up over some new law saying I am a felon for possessing shit I have owned for for about 35 years already when it comes down?
Annnd, if it matters, I believe Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land. But, even with that, you've got someone bitching about felons or schizophrenics not being able to carry.
quoted from your post: "Have you ever been confronted off duty?"
Nope- because I am not LE, there is no "off duty" for me. But I have been confronted, many times. I have even been mistaken for LE during a confrontation. None of that really matters though. Each individual has the Right to defend themselves as they see fit.
I get it. LE career is high risk in a lot of ways. Just like many other careers are. None of that changes what I believe is the very fundamental and base necessity of liberty- that all laws and all rights are for EVERYONE.
It is truly troubling to me how many LEO's are in favor of separating themselves from the laws they enforce and the citizens they enforce them upon.
The Us VS Them mentality cuts both ways.
I cannot logically reconcile separate classes of citizens with separate rules to adhere to based on which class you belong to, to be in line with the fundamental tenants of liberty and justice.
This argument of "picking and choosing which laws to enforce..." well what about the argument of "picking and choosing" WHO the law applies to and who it does NOT apply to...?
Lastly, it all really comes down to freedom. I don't need a piece of paper signed 100's of years ago or anyone or anything telling me what to do and how to do it. As Long as I am not hurting others, or trampling their rights, I am and should be free to do as I please, posses any item I please, say any messed up shit I please, etc.
As a group of individuals on a forum we always talk about 2A in terms of needing to defend our way of life from Tyranny, but really our Rights transcend that specific scenario.
I do things because I am free to do so. Not by the decree of some government or someone else. By my own Right to do so.
Real freedom is dangerous and beautiful. Not safe and acceptable.
Most people have either forgotten what a Right really is and what it truly embodies; or never understood it in the first place.
Updated plan for 2019
https://bacon.house.gov/media/press-releases/bacon-introduces-updated-legislation-improve-concealed-carry-legislation
Backing up in this discussion for a minute.....does anyone here think that this bill, H.R. 6105, the LEOSA Reform Act, has a snowball's chance of even getting out of committee in this Congress in this political environment? Law enforcement vs general public always generates this same circular argument on this discussion forum, but at its basis the whole discussion seems pretty moot unless you guys are seeing something in today's political landscape that I'm missing. I think that any law that loosens up any gun rights for any segment of the population is dead on arrival.
“Pretty much the same rights”. Is another way of saying/ Different rights...
Separate classes of citizens with separate rules is straight up unamerican, wrong and Runs counter to the idea of liberty.
It’s amazing to me I have to point this out, over and over again; to people on M4C.
..
So you took only the first half of the offending sentence, way to keep it in context. Reading is fundamental.
It’s amazing to me I have to point this out, over and over again; to people on M4C.
National concealed carry scares me, because it will end up getting a bunch of negative provisions added. Things like making it illegal to carry in private establishments that post the “no guns” sign. And other restrictions that many states don’t have to contend with.
It should be no infringements period and this should have been the case since after Appomattox Court House.
Backing up in this discussion for a minute.....does anyone here think that this bill, H.R. 6105, the LEOSA Reform Act, has a snowball's chance of even getting out of committee in this Congress in this political environment? Law enforcement vs general public always generates this same circular argument on this discussion forum, but at its basis the whole discussion seems pretty moot unless you guys are seeing something in today's political landscape that I'm missing. I think that any law that loosens up any gun rights for any segment of the population is dead on arrival.
I think it stands a very good chance of getting on the books.
I think it stands a very good chance of getting on the books.
Why? Until this thread I hadn't even heard of it. I tend to doubt it will get traction in a divided congress in either case. The second amendment supporters are polarized about it like on this thread and the anti's are fearful for different reasons. They're scared of if like the hearing protection act that faded away. In my part of the world we're not union and I have major issues with the local FOP, so am not a member. I do receive legislative updates from the state level but like I said, have not heard of it.
I think it stands a very good chance of getting on the books.
Why did the 2018 version fail? What possible incentive would an anti-gun and anti-police House majority have to pass any gun legislation in general and this bill in particular?
....
I have no idea why it didn't pass last year. It is rare when LE don't get exemptions from anti-gun laws. Further, granting LE special privileges from anti-gun laws is not restoring/furthering the 2nd Amendment or individual rights in general. Quite the opposite.
quoted from your post: "Have you ever been confronted off duty?"
Nope- because I am not LE, there is no "off duty" for me. But I have been confronted, many times. I have even been mistaken for LE during a confrontation. None of that really matters though. Each individual has the Right to defend themselves as they see fit.
I get it. LE career is high risk in a lot of ways. Just like many other careers are. None of that changes what I believe is the very fundamental and base necessity of liberty- that all laws and all rights are for EVERYONE.
It is truly troubling to me how many LEO's are in favor of separating themselves from the laws they enforce and the citizens they enforce them upon.
The Us VS Them mentality cuts both ways.
I cannot logically reconcile separate classes of citizens with separate rules to adhere to based on which class you belong to, to be in line with the fundamental tenants of liberty and justice.
This argument of "picking and choosing which laws to enforce..." well what about the argument of "picking and choosing" WHO the law applies to and who it does NOT apply to...?
Lastly, it all really comes down to freedom. I don't need a piece of paper signed 100's of years ago or anyone or anything telling me what to do and how to do it. As Long as I am not hurting others, or trampling their rights, I am and should be free to do as I please, posses any item I please, say any messed up shit I please, etc.
As a group of individuals on a forum we always talk about 2A in terms of needing to defend our way of life from Tyranny, but really our Rights transcend that specific scenario.
I do things because I am free to do so. Not by the decree of some government or someone else. By my own Right to do so.
Real freedom is dangerous and beautiful. Not safe and acceptable.
Most people have either forgotten what a Right really is and what it truly embodies; or never understood it in the first place.
I like you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
quoted from your post: "Have you ever been confronted off duty?"
Well, just to keep it in context, that was a response to Stickman, who I know is an officer.
But I have been confronted, many times.
Speaking from the heart, why is that? The area you work or live in? Some vibe you give off? Most folks live relatively drama free lives.
Lastly, it all really comes down to freedom. I don't need a piece of paper signed 100's of years ago or anyone or anything telling me what to do and how to do it. As Long as I am not hurting others, or trampling their rights, I am and should be free to do as I please, posses any item I please, say any messed up shit I please, etc.
As a group of individuals on a forum we always talk about 2A in terms of needing to defend our way of life from Tyranny, but really our Rights transcend that specific scenario.
I do things because I am free to do so. Not by the decree of some government or someone else. By my own Right to do so.
Real freedom is dangerous and beautiful. Not safe and acceptable.
My belief is that, in most cases, my rights end where the other person's rights begin, and vice versa. That is kind of the bargain we make when we live in societies.
I get it. LE career is high risk in a lot of ways. Just like many other careers are. None of that changes what I believe is the very fundamental and base necessity of liberty- that all laws and all rights are for EVERYONE.
As you noted, it isn't that high risk when compared to other careers. And in fact, less than 20% of duty-related deaths are from hostile encounters. Accidents, infectious disease contracted on duty, job-related cardiac events, etc. kill more officers than felons each year. My grandson is an electrical lineman, I'd be less worried if he was a cop.
So you took only the first half of the offending sentence, way to keep it in context. Reading is fundamental.
It’s amazing to me I have to point this out, over and over again; to people on M4C.
Here, I edited my original post and copied it here:
I think it's interesting that almost all on this site have some of the same thoughts on CCW and second amendment rights. People frequently tell some of the LEO's not to take it personally but they are doing what we as gun owners all hate, being lumped into the worst examples that can be found like the Florida Deputy. As gun owners we don't appreciate being lumped in with the Las Vegas shooter either. Most of us had nothing to do with the passage or enforcement of the LEOSA. Many have stated that we should all have the same rights. Then they get asked the nuclear question, would you enforce an extreme confiscation law? That's going to be taken hard as a protector, a citizen that's trying to serve others.
FWIW around here we have pretty much the same rights as any citizen with an exception of carrying in local government buildings like courthouses or police departments. That includes open carry or CCW. Maybe that's why I've never had the local people I serve question me like some on here would. Being somewhat rural we're fortunate in that's assumed we would not participate in any extreme enforcement, which we wouldn't. And yes I get to make that choice. I truly feel for those that live in socialist states, which is why I left CA 35 years ago. I believe that more extreme gun control legislation will be at the state levels in the future. So far nationally that's what happened. When I travel I take my ID and my weapon but my Wife, Son, Daughter, and I all have CCW's as well. Redundancy is good.
We were the agency that till the requirement was removed signed as the CLEO for all Class III. I would ask that some of you keep in mind that many here are your allies and support equal rights for all and have served as many of you in both the military and LEO. We find the current laws in many states repugnant. To me it's all service, and I take both of my oaths equally seriously.
“Pretty much the same rights”. Is another way of saying/ Different rights...
Separate classes of citizens with separate rules is straight up unamerican, wrong and Runs counter to the idea of liberty.
It’s amazing to me I have to point this out, over and over again; to people on M4C...
Edited original post as you replied to me wondering why I didn’t discuss each of your posts. ETA:
I’m not lumping any LEO together in a negative fashion. I’m also not trying to separate LEO from other citizens via what rules should apply.
I applaud you taking your oaths seriously, as all who take an oath should.
I asked the question to Mark as a way of driving a point home in an extreme scenario. I’ll break it down...
No matter how unconstitutional a law may be- eg, if it’s simply enforcing an SBR law say versus confiscating a firearm outright- they are both unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. The picking and choosing is happening already.
Sure an SBR law isn’t quite as repugnant as full on confiscation. But fundamentally they are both infringements.
My point is this- why would you enforce ANY unconstitutional law? No matter how “small” the infringement is?
And how can one claim and use as a defense “I can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce” when you have to pick between the Constituion/supreme law and some BS SBR or high cap limit law?
National concealed carry scares me, because it will end up getting a bunch of negative provisions added. Things like making it illegal to carry in private establishments that post the “no guns” sign. And other restrictions that many states don’t have to contend with.
I agree. I do not want the Feds controlling CCW. It needs to be left to the States. There needs to be a 14th Amendment thing like State Drivers Licences.
As you noted, it isn't that high risk when compared to other careers. And in fact, less than 20% of duty-related deaths are from hostile encounters. Accidents, infectious disease contracted on duty, job-related cardiac events, etc. kill more officers than felons each year. My grandson is an electrical lineman, I'd be less worried if he was a cop.
The confrontations I’ve had are due to a few factors/ mostly happenstance, luck isn’t the correct term; just happen to be someone who has some odd magnetism, if you will. For both positive and negative stuff, really.
Some of it is due to my volunteer work with juveniles and battered woman. People that are troubled can be thankful of a helping hand, or bite that hand. And some times they have unsavory people in their lives that get brought into mine.
I’ve also stepped into a few confrontations being the type of person willing to help those in need/duress.
I'm going to give it a shot but keep in mind I'm answering honestly in an attempt to lower the tension and animosity in this thread. We're not very far apart on the 2nd, not at all.
No matter how unconstitutional a law may be- eg, if it’s simply enforcing an SBR law say versus confiscating a firearm outright- they are both unconstitutional and shouldn’t be enforced. The picking and choosing is happening already.
I believe to a degree you are correct but wonder does this apply to all laws or just the 2nd? Who do you trust to determine constitutionality? Seriously who gets to decide this?
Sure an SBR law isn’t quite as repugnant as full on confiscation. But fundamentally they are both infringements.
I own my own class 3 stuff and agree with you. I cringed on every $200.00 stamp however if I want to play in this arena I don't have any choice. I do disagree in that full on confiscation is much more repugnant, not even in the same league. In 28 years in law enforcement, somewhat busy on the street for the first 20 years I've never came across an illegal SBR, suppressor, or SBS. I suppose the ATF would pick these up.
My point is this- why would you enforce ANY unconstitutional law? No matter how “small” the infringement is?
The easy answer is no but the reality is I've arrested many people for crimes that the arrested might believe the arrest was for actions that they thought should be legal. So, again who gets to decide?
And how can one claim and use as a defense “I can’t pick and choose which laws to enforce” when you have to pick between the Constituion/supreme law and some BS SBR or high cap limit law?
I believe there is some officer discretion but depending on department policy and the area you work in it could be less than what I believe we have here in many areas. I can state without question that nobody in the department i am at would participate in confiscation on any level. On mag caps, is there a federal law anywhere? The states have ran with that..
Lighten up a bit, guys. It's just the internet.
Why doesn't the guy who changed careers after 9.5 years get to be in your club? I'm sure he runs into people he had interactions with as a cop.
The VFW doesn't exempt anyone from any laws, seems like poor example to compare to your club. I've been identifiable as military out of uniform and mad dogged by a group of middle eastern men once.
Two important points that I want to make perfectly clear.
1) For me and probably most of us here that oppose LEOSA. It is a position completely
based on principle and completely separate from my feelings about LE. When LE take it personally that affirms our belief that separate laws for LE create classes or an "us vs them" mentality.
2) I do not believe that you can separate supporting LEOSA from anti gun policy. It perpetuates the anti gun myth that only the government or those the government deems worthy can be trusted with a firearm. LE organization's that support LEOSA are also supporting that anti gun narrative. No way around it, individual support for CCW reciprocity on a gun forum is not what the rest of the Country sees.
It's like your in my head, stealing my thoughts! LOL
I absolutely 100% support the right of any LEO, current, former or retired to carry anywhere in the country, I just want reciprocation from them. As former .mil, former LE, current .gov and most importantly, an honest, law abiding citizen, there shouldn't be anywhere in the country I can't carry except restricted areas controlled by screening measures and armed guards. It really is that simple.
If you're an LEO that thinks I should be arrested and made a felon just because I'm trying to protect myself and my family just like you, then you're not my friend. You certainly aren't my ally. You are in fact my adversary, and rightly so. It's not personal, it's just business. A professional transaction so to speak. But I'm not going to sit there and let you think you're a good guy just doing your duty, no Sir. You don't have to like what I have to say, but you will hear it.
I don't want any LE to lose rights I covet myself. But in those states and cities where they place LE above the rest of us citizens even when off duty, far too many of those exception laws were carved out by LE unions and CLEO's who abandoned us for the sake of their own skins. I've yet to see a single LE organization or CLEO in those locales come out in opposition to those anti-2A laws. Instead what we've seen are letters and interviews where those CLEOs and LE unions SUPPORT the anti-2A legislation, so long as they get their special exemptions because you know, they're special and better than the rest of us.
Those are the ones that just say "it's the law and by policy, I must arrest you for a felony". Yep, you're my adversary. I didn't make you my adversary, you did. If you refuse to speak out in my defense, why should I support you? It's just a bridge too far.
Most people here that are non LE can look at someone here in LE with the exact same background and vice versa.
While it is impossible to not get on the nerves with each other, most are bringing up some pretty valid discussion.
While some LEOs here may have spent 20 plus years serving high risk warrants on some pretty dangerous dudes that are back on the streets, some spent that time rounding up drunk college students, giving soccer moms speeding tickets in the burbs, logging in evidence, pushing paper, doing forensic accounting, or inspecting cargo containers. With most somewhere in the middle.
Several non LE paramedics, pharmacists, repo men, physicians, building inspectors, cable guys, and hundreds of other means of employment people have pissed off tons of dangerous people as well, cutting off their TV, power, narcotics prescriptions, means of transportation, etc.
It’s not that I don’t think retired LEOS should have the right to carry. It’s that I don’t think they should have a right their fellow civilian or military sane, tax paying, non criminal citizens don’t have.
If you are that officer down crawling behind your cruiser taking fire from a carload of savages I am going to slam on my brakes, pull my SUV in front of you, dump a pistol mag at them, grab my Carbine, jump out on your side of my vehicle, give a 5 second message on your handset, throw a CAT on you, then dump 5.56 into each of those fukers one fast trigger pull at a time until they go down.
Then if you need mouth to mouth and chest compressions until the ambulance shows up I will do it. I have pumped lead into savages before. I have tried and failed or tried and succeeded to save people before. I have exposed myself to fire or suicide belts / stacked into a room to get to a wounded buddy before, while older, slower, weaker, fatter, and less eagle eyed I figure I’m still up for doing it again.
Am I somebody you are cool with having no right to carry?
Will you roll me up over some new law saying I am a felon for possessing shit I have owned for about 35 years already when it comes down?
Same here. I'm a lot older and less physically capable, but still full of treachery should the need arise. I have no duty to render aid, but all the Oaths I've sworn remain long after the "duty" has lapsed.
I'm going to give it a shot but keep in mind I'm answering honestly in an attempt to lower the tension and animosity in this thread. We're not very far apart on the 2nd, not at all.
[QUOTE=seb5;2692213]I'm going to give it a shot but keep in mind I'm answering honestly in an attempt to lower the tension and animosity in this thread. We're not very far apart on the 2nd, not at all.
I believe there is some officer discretion but depending on department policy and the area you work in it could be less than what I believe we have here in many areas. I can state without question that nobody in the department i am at would participate in confiscation on any level. On mag caps, is there a federal law anywhere? The states have ran with that..
I have zero animosity towards anyone in this thread. I speak and write ver passionately, but I have nothing but respect for everyone in this thread and gratitude for those of you who serve your community as LEO’s.
I know sometimes the written word comes across as snarky or negative, perception can be manipulated by passion- each of us obviously very passionate about these opinions and discussions.
Per the tenth amendment, constitutionality is a right reserved to the people and the states.
Let’s not get that confused with states making unconstitutional laws being okay; there is an amendment process and if the people and the states so desire they can amend/destroy 2A.
I’m thankful the amendment process isn’t easy and requires a ton of people/states to do It.
Guys, I support the right of all Americans to carry EVERY where in the USA.
I give up money to support lobbyist to get to this goal.
I don't think my ability to carry under LEOSA changes this.
Now I will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I would carry even without LEOSA.
I have gone into places with a pistol on me that if it was found, arrest would not be a risk. You can't arrest a butchered body.
Sometimes I used to carry things that were legal, but with my training give me the ability to kill 99.9 % of the people on the globe.
So for those that don't want to see any "special rights" to LE, I answer to you life isn't fair. I don't have a right to be a Formual 1 driver, I didn't pursue that as a career. Do I get worked up because Lewis Hamilton is making a ton of money and in bed with a different hottie every day nope.
Also in closing please show me a time in American history where universally people were allowed to carry every where .
Is Lewis Hamilton driving 200+ mph on public roads with exemptions from laws all while carrying out sanctions against the unwashed masses up to, and including, causing their imprisonment, injury, and death for engaging in the same behavior he gets a pass on?
Yes, there have been wrongs committed since the beginning. I think a fair amount of liberties and limited government Federalists promised when establishing their power was bullshit they never intended to follow through on which should have made the other parties in the contract double down on making sure promises were kept. John Adams and other Federalists should have been rounded up and locked away(at a minimum) over the Sedition Act (meant to keep them in office) as an early example.
Problems are supposed to be fixed or else "We've always done it wrong this way!" may as well be translated in to Latin as an ignominious motto.
Guys, I support the right of all Americans to carry EVERY where in the USA.
I give up money to support lobbyist to get to this goal.
I don't think my ability to carry under LEOSA changes this.
Now I will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I would carry even without LEOSA.
I have gone into places with a pistol on me that if it was found, arrest would not be a risk. You can't arrest a butchered body.
Sometimes I used to carry things that were legal, but with my training give me the ability to kill 99.9 % of the people on the globe.
So for those that don't want to see any "special rights" to LE, I answer to you life isn't fair. I don't have a right to be a Formual 1 driver, I didn't pursue that as a career. Do I get worked up because Lewis Hamilton is making a ton of money and in bed with a different hottie every day nope.
Also in closing please show me a time in American history where universally people were allowed to carry every where .
Linemen have a dangerous job. We dont get free or cut rate power.
platoonDaddy
01-04-19, 18:31
Interesting case sitting on the docket, that will (hopefully) make us all equal:
Interesting. Thomas Rogers, a resident of Wall, NJ submitted an application for concealed carry in Jan 2017. About 6 months later, after a successful background and required training ($$$) it was denied because of no special need. He appealed, along with the NJ gun rights group, to NJ Court and was denied again in Jan 2018. Rogers and the gun group appealed to the Federal Court in NJ. About May, the Federal Court, dismissed the complaint. Rogers appealed to the Federal Appeals Court. That court just ruled the special need use in NJ is unconstitutional. They gave NJ ‘till Feb to file an appeal request to the US Supreme Court. Since we have different Circuits ruling differently on this issue, certiorari should be granted.
Does this mean that NJ must immediately drop the special need requirement like DC had to? I think so.
Response from NJ due February 1st.
“The Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Ninth Circuits have concluded that the right to carry a firearm extends outside the home and that licensing restrictions that require citizens to show a special need for carrying a firearm effectively “destroy[ ] the ordinarily situated citizen’s right to bear arms” and therefore are categorically unconstitutional."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-824.html
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for selfdefense.
2. Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
Edit Forgot to add Roberts scares me
The confrontations I’ve had are due to a few factors/ mostly happenstance, luck isn’t the correct term; just happen to be someone who has some odd magnetism, if you will. For both positive and negative stuff, really.
Some of it is due to my volunteer work with juveniles and battered woman. People that are troubled can be thankful of a helping hand, or bite that hand. And some times they have unsavory people in their lives that get brought into mine.
I’ve also stepped into a few confrontations being the type of person willing to help those in need/duress.
Hmmm, seems we are more alike than different in many ways.
Linemen have a dangerous job. We dont get free or cut rate power.
Plus you get to work in the nicest weather.
At the present my oldest grandson is doing his apprenticeship. It pissed my son and daughter-in-law off, but I tried my damnedest to talk him out of his career choice. He is a bright young man, but has the occasional airhead moment, which is my main concern.
Plus you get to work in the nicest weather.
At the present my oldest grandson is doing his apprenticeship. It pissed my son and daughter-in-law off, but I tried my damnedest to talk him out of his career choice. He is a bright young man, but has the occasional airhead moment, which is my main concern.
Linemen are in demand. Rate in Ga is ~$38 an hour. No college debt. Honest work. Dangerous if you don’t keep your head in the game. His apprenticeship will man him up. If he makes lineman, he earned it. Worth every second of it. We don’t get exemptions from legislation though. Everything has its drawbacks.
Don Bacon is a pro amnesty big government establishment Rino.
It doesn’t surprise me in the least he is trying to increase the powers of agents of the state.
I am also against LEOSA. It is unconstitutional and is completely defiant of the principles this country was founded upon.
Linemen have a dangerous job. We dont get free or cut rate power.
In Israel you would get free electricity.
In Israel you would get free electricity.
If you're a citizen.....
But in America, all men are equal. Or supposed to be anyway.
In Israel you would get free electricity.
But you would have to live in Israel..........
But in America, all men are equal. Or supposed to be anyway.
Not true. Just ask any of the Clinton's or any of the leftist elite. So why do we even need LEOSA? The police can just be another elite class like HRC. They can break all types of laws and not have any charges brought against them.
That what this does, right? Creating a new class that are above the law. Even better, we will change the law just for you to make you even more special.
If you're a citizen.....
No you just have to be an employee of the electric company.
I asked a question, that nobody has addressed so I will ask it again.
Can we point to a time in American history, where their were no restrictions any where on carrying a firearm?
I think the answer is going to be no, that we have always had restrictions in some form or the other. If I am correct then we would be better off pushing to remove laws, rather than complain cops can carry under LEOSA.
I asked a question, that nobody has addressed so I will ask it again.
Can we point to a time in American history, where their were no restrictions any where on carrying a firearm?
I think the answer is going to be no, that we have always had restrictions in some form or the other. If I am correct then we would be better off pushing to remove laws, rather than complain cops can carry under LEOSA.
I addressed that earlier that there have always been infringements that were totally opposite the promises made during the debates on the constitution and pointed out the sedition law intended to keep John Adams and other Federalists in office.
I honestly doubt the majority of founders supported individual freedoms and were just BS'ing people so they could establish their power. That should have caused the people getting BS'ed to double down on promises being kept. Also, just because something has been done wrong doesn't mean it should continue to be done wrong. And on that note....
I also pointed out how LE, and their firearms privileges, have been used to oppose stripping away anti gun laws in every single state. It is not in the best interest of private citizens to have a group that is largely indifferent to firearms freedoms, if not vehemently opposed, to not have skin in the game.
I asked a question, that nobody has addressed so I will ask it again.
Can we point to a time in American history, where their were no restrictions any where on carrying a firearm?
I think the answer is going to be no, that we have always had restrictions in some form or the other. If I am correct then we would be better off pushing to remove laws, rather than complain cops can carry under LEOSA.
That would be a regional thing. NYC was one of the first places to have gun laws ..... And why was that? They wanted it to stop crime...... so they took guns away. If I am not mistaken Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first when he was the Police Commissioner.
ALSO, lets talk about the NFA...... A law that was created for the Police. It was not a public safety thing as it was sold to be...... It was because the cops were getting the sh@t kicked out of them. They had .38s and shotguns and the bad guys were smart enough to have Thompsons, BARs and 1911s......
See a pattern?
There was a time in this country when you could buy machine guns, dynamite, morphine, Coca Cola with actual cocaine, and hemp over the counter. Folks threw Great Gatsby parties blaring loud Negro jazz with flapper girls running around naked save for pearls and heels. Everybody minded their own god dang business and it was not only legal but ENCOURAGED to live off the grid.
Yoni, broham...bubby, learn how America really was.
If you dropped a dude from 1922 into 2019 he would bemoan how square everybody was.
I mean....DUELING was LEGAL. People called folks out for Smiff and Westerns at dawn AND IT HAPPENED. “He needed killing” was an affirmative defense!
America didn’t get cucked until the 30s bro. No Elders. No Hierarchy. And even post Civil War, talk of a sitting President coming to not just your state but your town was at times a call to arms.
Naw....sorry. There were plenty of times you could carry guns forever in America. Its just after two centuries of post mortem mind reading and “interpretation” has gotten us to here.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.