LEO's off duty and no firearm businesses

[gkeil961]

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.....

 

[PaxMentis]

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]

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]

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]

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".

 

[Keykutter]

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]

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.

 

[Keykutter]

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