LEO's off duty and no firearm businesses


G50AE

Well-known member
In the meantime, I will take advantage of the exemptions I have.

Sounds like more sheepdoggery and CCW Badge polishing to me. I don't see why you as a retired LEO should have the ability to wear your CCW Badge and say ha-ha LEOSA and carry where you please even though us lesser individuals can't.
 

Geeze. Not that I haven't met an idiot LEO once or twice in my long life, but the overt bad feelings of Civilians vs. Cops in this Forum is disturbing.

I don't think an LEO should want to limit my ability to carry but I also think that if anyone should be required to be armed regardless, is an LEO, and not have to jump through the same hoops that government officials make civilians jump through.

I believe the Constitution gives us the inherent right to keep and bear arms but unfortunately there is a faction, some call it 'the crazies', that I really don't want to have access to weapons, let alone have the right to carry them.

Stealing them and hiding them on their person is bound to happen anyway but condoning it is more idiocy than encouraging a mental deficient to carry one, even though it may have the effect of thinning out the bad gene pool if they display, but I digress.

The first amendment is what this site is all about as well as the second, and I spent 20 years of my life helping to preserve the rights we have which for one is the right for anyone to say just about anything, but this animosity against LEO's really make's me think twice about why I am: 1. even having to say this. and 2. realizing why LEO's always seem like they are on the defensive.

I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me what the deal with this site is and attitude toward Law Enforcement. I'm fairly new here as a poster, maybe I missed something before I got here.

Not trying to teach, preach or set policy. Just trying to figure out if I fit in to this site.

KK
 

G50AE

Well-known member
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me what the deal with this site is and attitude toward Law Enforcement. I'm fairly new here as a poster, maybe I missed something before I got here.

Not trying to teach, preach or set policy. Just trying to figure out if I fit in to this site.

KK

I haven't noticed any anti-law enforcement attitudes on this site. What I have seen is a lot of people are tired of the assertion that when a LEO is involved, that should somehow trump all constitutional right of everyone else involved. But then again one of the regulars, kelcarry, accused me of obviously being hostile towards SC LEO's after I explained to another poster that caneguns were classified as "any other weapon" under the national firearms act.
 

Fallguy

Citizen
While I admit some on here truly may be Anti-LEO, I do think some others see anything other than; LEOs are always right, can never do anything wrong and can do whatever they need (regardless of law/rights/consitution) for safety as being Anti-LEO too.

I try to treat LEOs with respect, as I do anyone else, unless something happens to cause me not to have respect for them. But at the same time I don't automatically think they are the end-all-be-all of everything either. Just as most LEOs treat those they interact with respect while mentally thinking this person may try to kill me at any point and I need to be ready.
 

gkeil961

New member
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me what the deal with this site is and attitude toward Law Enforcement. I'm fairly new here as a poster, maybe I missed something before I got here.

Not trying to teach, preach or set policy. Just trying to figure out if I fit in to this site.

KK

I haven't noticed any anti-law enforcement attitudes on this site. What I have seen is a lot of people are tired of the assertion that when a LEO is involved, that should somehow trump all constitutional right of everyone else involved. But the again one of the regulars, kelcarry, accused me of obviously being hostile towards SC LEO's after I explained to another poster that caneguns were classified as "any other weapon" under the national firearms act.

I have seen PLENTY anti law enforcement and IMHO i was also wondering if i myself fit in on this site.....
 

G50AE

Well-known member
well I do work with LEO's and they do deal with very bad people and if they should happen to run across a Bad guy while off duty that they have dealt with in the past that might want revenge on the LEO well I would want that privilege too

So someone else who has to run into that bad person should be defenceless?? What if they want revenge on an ordinary citizen for doing something that wasn't "gangsta" and dissed their homeys?

And we don't call it privilege, it's right to keep and bear arms folks.
 

PaxMentis

New member
Sounds like more sheepdoggery and CCW Badge polishing to me. I don't see why you as a retired LEO should have the ability to wear your CCW Badge and say ha-ha LEOSA and carry where you please even though us lesser individuals can't.

I haven't noticed any anti-law enforcement attitudes on this site. What I have seen is a lot of people are tired of the assertion that when a LEO is involved, that should somehow trump all constitutional right of everyone else involved. But the again one of the regulars, kelcarry, accused me of obviously being hostile towards SC LEO's after I explained to another poster that caneguns were classified as "any other weapon" under the national firearms act.

So someone else who has to run into that bad person should be defenceless?? What if they want revenge on an ordinary citizen for doing something that wasn't "gangsta" and dissed their homeys?

And we don't call it privilege, it's right to keep and bear arms folks.

Right...and yet you seem to find it necessary to be hostile to me as a retired LEO even though I have nothing to do with you needing a permit to carry.

I have not only advocated since I showed up on this site for constitutional carry, I have advocated against the idea of justifying no knock warrants, pretextual Terry searches and all other forms of abuse of authority in the name of "officer safety"...but you still have the need to be hostile and assholeish with me because I am a retired LEO.

No, you have nothing against LEOs...why would anyone think you do?
 

kardar2

kardar2
So someone else who has to run into that bad person should be defenceless?? What if they want revenge on an ordinary citizen for doing something that wasn't "gangsta" and dissed their homeys?

And we don't call it privilege, it's right to keep and bear arms folks.

No that's what I meant everyone should have the right to carry. BUT LEO's deal on a daily basis with gang members and very bad people so I think they are entitled to have more rights than the normal CCW holder. they should not have to jump through hoops to be able to carry off duty.
 

PaxMentis

New member
No that's what I meant everyone should have the right to carry. BUT LEO's deal on a daily basis with gang members and very bad people so I think they are entitled to have more rights than the normal CCW holder. they should not have to jump through hoops to be able to carry off duty.

However, the larger question is "Why should others have to jump through hoops in order to protect themselves?".
 

Fallguy

Citizen
No that's what I meant everyone should have the right to carry. BUT LEO's deal on a daily basis with gang members and very bad people so I think they are entitled to have more rights than the normal CCW holder. they should not have to jump through hoops to be able to carry off duty.

It's not like the right to bear arms is a limited resource in that those with a greater "need" should have first shot at it.

It it is, or should be at least, a right equally granted to all regardless of any "need".
 
it is, or should be at least, a right equally granted to all regardless of any "need".

Just for the sake of discussion and not to be critically argumentative, but how would you regulate the ability, or non-ablity for mentally deficient or insane person from buying and carrying a gun?...Or would you?

The constitution doesn't specify that particular scenario and I suspect that the Founding Fathers would hope that common sense would prevail even though they didn't leave much else for speculation although it is still specualted upon. They did a pretty damn good job as far as I'm concerned but mental illness was treated far differently back then.

Is your contention that EVERYBODY, regardless, should be able to carry?

KK
 

Fallguy

Citizen
Just for the sake of discussion and not to be critically argumentative, but how would you regulate the ability, or non-ablity for mentally deficient or insane person from buying and carrying a gun?...Or would you?

The constitution doesn't specify that particular scenario and I suspect that the Founding Fathers would hope that common sense would prevail even though they didn't leave much else for speculation although it is still specualted upon. They did a pretty damn good job as far as I'm concerned but mental illness was treated far differently back then.

Is your contention that EVERYBODY, regardless, should be able to carry?

KK

My point wasn't so much about determining who should or shouldn't carry or even that "everyone" should be able to, but that among those that can carry, whether your are the President of the United States or a ditch digger, your ability to carry should be the same...and not based on any need.

But to try and answer your question...which I am not really qualified to do...I would say if you have been adjudicated as unable to handle your own affairs, it may be reasonable to restrict or remove your right to carry. As to how this would be enforced....I have no idea.
 
It it is, or should be at least, a right equally granted to all regardless of any "need".

That was a good answer. I haven't been around here enough to figure where everybody is on diferrent subjects and you made this statement and I was just wondering. Now that you have defined the context, I see your point.

KK
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,639
Members
74,272
Latest member
gulshannegi
Top