Which goes back to my original point. It ain't SDD's fault that law got passed and he'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. So, why ride him over it?
New LEO carry question
- Thread starter superdutydave
- Start date
Which goes back to my original point. It ain't SDD's fault that law got passed and he'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. So, why ride him over it?
wolf_fire
New member
There is no logic in prescribing one law for the subjects and another for the government officials. A law that allows government officials to have one set of rules where as the rest of society has another, is the mark of tyranny. This is true by allowing one standard to LE, and one for everyone else... this is also true by forcing the American public to be part of the ACA whereas the legislators get their own healthcare package. It's not right in either arena and only serves to divide the populace from the government, when this nation was built on the populace being the government.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
This gives us a clue as to just how knowledgeable you are about the Constitution and the rights it acknowledges as being inherent in every person who is born. The federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from controlling the exercise of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and that applies to both individual citizens and the states in which they reside, with very limited exceptions contemplated by the Framers. A "national carry permit" (more commonly referred to as "national reciprocity") that originates from the .fedgov is a violation by the federal government of the prohibitions and limitations of authority placed upon it by the Constitution.
To say that you're for federal legislation that controls any aspect of the rights contemplated by the Framers in the 2nd Amendment is no different to me than saying that you're all for forcing a contact into having their person or car searched even though you have no probable cause. It's also no different to me than saying out loud that you don't even understand the oath you took to protect and defend the Constitution. In fact, it screams that as though you actually did say it out loud.
Live long enough and someone has it out for you. Like I said first, special treatment. To think that cops should be afforded extra rights when their oath is only about protecting the citizens' rights that they supposedly "serve" has no logical connection to the Constitution whatsoever. It's a disgusting and blatant overreach of federal authority.
Yeah? How about you show us in the law where it says that? It does nothing but put government employees' (cops') rights above those of the citizens they're sworn to protect the rights of. And it tramples on states' rights to boot. The very description of the law makes that very clear:
Assuming this is true, what does it have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Where is there a training requirement for The People to be trained outside of their militia duties? You do realize that cops are not the militia, and that the Supreme Court has (finally) determined that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right separate and apart from the militia clause, right? Neither your or my level of training has any bearing whatsoever on the right that the 2A protects. This is something that should be at the forefront of your training, to make sure that all government oath-takers understand what their oath actually means.
Why not? You've got the whole weight of the federal government giving you Carte Blanc to violate state and local laws to your heart's content. What possible discomfort could you have with that in mind? I mean, it's not like you're just an average Joe with a CWP who gets contacted by cops for talking to the wrong person on the side of the road and then gets threatened with execution by the cops and arrested. No, you've got a "special" piece of paper that gives you more rights than the citizens you're sworn to protect the rights of! Your "discomfort" does nothing to decrease my disgust over the federal government forcing states and citizens to take a back seat to government employees' "rights."
Blues
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I think the mentality that the average Joe has no training is pathetic. Is that how police feel about the average citizen? Does this mentality go beyond just firearms training?
All rhetorical...so many commandos.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
All rhetorical...so many commandos.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Rocketgeezer
New member
At the very least
I know this is going to piss some folks off but if you look at it objectively I’m willing to bet the OP is right.
I think the statistics are that only 1% or so of gun owners even have a carry permit and even from that group there are a bunch that only carry when they think they need it or only have it so that they don't have to do a BGC. Extrapolating just from that I’d be willing to bet that the average gun owner probably only takes his/her gun out of the house to go to the range and probably doesn’t even do that very often.
Then let’s look at “training” I don’t have hard facts I’m just putting this forth as speculation but I’d be willing to bet that the average gun owner went through BRM in the service (and BTW only 1% or so of Americans even join the military) and that was the extent of his/ her “training”. I’m not knocking BRM, we’ve won a couple of wars with soldiers who didn’t have any more training than BRM but it is Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Learning how to fire an M16 from a foxhole supported firing position doesn’t help me with a Glock.
Again, I’m speculating but I’d bet that the people that participate here have more training than the average gun owner.
So if you take the OP at face value, yeah I’m willing to concede that the average cop has more training than the average gun owner.
I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic.
1. I'm willing to bet you a paycheck that statitstics will show that the average Joe Citizen has a much higher chance of being the victim of the random criminal attack - especially away from home, such as a tourist - than a LEO does of being the target of a specific criminal out for revenge, especially outside of that LEO's home jurisdiction. So it would seem to me that outside the LEO's normal jurisdiction I have just as much need for self protection as the off duty LEO does. Therefore, there is no real logic behind the argument that a LEO has more need to carry outside their jurisdiction where average Joe Citizen is not allowed to due to self protection.
2. Protect the public from felonies being committed in the LEO's presence? So, according to that "logic", I am supposed to rely upon there being a LEO around to see the crime being committed against me, and then hope that LEO is willing to protect me when they have no legal obligation to do so? In fact, the justice system is stacked against them if they are willing to defend me, especially if that LEO is off-duty outside their normal jurisdiction. Want to stop the felonies.... how about allowing the potential victims to be armed to stop the felonies being committed against them. That would be logical.
I'm not against you, superdutydave - I know you would rather that we all were able to carry to protect ourselves with very few limitations (and my opinion is with no government imposed limititations on locations). But I can't agree with you that there is a logical basis for the LEO Safety Act.
ajr2820
New member
Far better than the Average Joe, huh? Sounds like you just have a big ego and are maybe a bit too full of yourself? Yeah, PERFECT qualities in a LEO! </end sarcasm>
telpinaro
New member
I'd bet it's not that they think he's more "important," but that he's somehow more capable or trustworthy whereas us average people are incompetent or dangerous (possible bad guys - cause, you know, no cops ever go bad due to PTSD or whatever). Whatever it is, all are equally repugnant.
superdutydave
New member
Guys get over it. Avg Joe is just that..most guys/gals have very limited training, shoot very infrequently and have considered little scenarios of when then might need to utilize the firearm they own. That is the truth of the majority. I'm quite sure it is not representive of those here.
Far as it goes I hope interstate reseprocity can happen at some point.
I'm done with the debate too much anger and ego.
I do my job out desire to serve not ego nor certainly the money I get paid
Far as it goes I hope interstate reseprocity can happen at some point.
I'm done with the debate too much anger and ego.
I do my job out desire to serve not ego nor certainly the money I get paid
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
There's no real debate anyways. LEO's think joe citizen doesn't have any training...joe citizen thinks LEO's are overpowering thugs...just the way it is...
but...
in the end...Joe citizen defends himself and others around them more often with nearly 0% innocent causalities and a much higher hit rate compared to LEO's...
So ego aside...it's a good thing LEO's may get more training, they need it.
SR40c
Done told her once...
SUCKS Big time...
The life of a LEO is no more important than anyone else. The main reason a LEO and retired LEO's are given the right to carry concealed with out a permit, (but must qualify at least once a year) is that during their career they have made many enemies.
Most of these enemies are some of the worst criminals society has to offer, and some have been sent to prison by the LEO's
and some do hold a grudge and have killed LEO's upon release.
These dregs of society also target the LEO's family, usually a child, and on one occasion one of these criminals waited for a 6 year old child to return home from school and killed her in front of her father as he opened the door to their home to greet her, he later stated "he wanted the father to suffer".
This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding LEO's and the criminal element he or she deals with during their career.
I believe this is the reason LEOSA became law.
Most of these enemies are some of the worst criminals society has to offer, and some have been sent to prison by the LEO's
and some do hold a grudge and have killed LEO's upon release.
These dregs of society also target the LEO's family, usually a child, and on one occasion one of these criminals waited for a 6 year old child to return home from school and killed her in front of her father as he opened the door to their home to greet her, he later stated "he wanted the father to suffer".
This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding LEO's and the criminal element he or she deals with during their career.
I believe this is the reason LEOSA became law.
In my opinion it is an excuse for the law, not a valid reason. For example, some states have used recent mass shootings as an excuse to pass magazine capacity laws. Let's say there is a year prison sentence for anyone possessing a magazine over 10 rounds capacity. The exact same goal could be accomplished by saying that anyone discharging more than 10 rounds during the commission of a crime would be subject to 1 year in prison above the sentence for the crime itself. The politicians that pass such laws have only one goal - to allow government to remain armed and powerful while disarming and weakening the citizen.
The criminal who has the intention of committing a violent crime is EVERYONE's enemy, not just LEO's. If you want to use training as an excuse - go right ahead. Then allow ANYONE who passes the same firearms qualifications once a year as required by the LEO Safety Act to carry a firearm anywhere allowed by the LEO safety act. Just because a LEO may have one or more enemies than I do does not make it right to allow them to be able to protect themselves and their families more than I am allowed to protect myself and my family from my enemies.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
So do the family's of the LEO's also get full coverage across the states to defend themselves? No? Hmmm....
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
wolf_fire
New member
So, by what you have said, a LEO has more of a right to defend and protect himself within this country than anyone else. No one else is able to defend and protect one's self in all fifty states. The last I read the second amendment applied to all the citizenry not just a select few and certainly not just for governmental officials.
Look, do you have a concealed carry permit ? Yes you probably do. Are you a LEO ? I say no. So before you judge any cop that put his time in, why don't you walk in his shoes for about 20 years
and then come back and give me your opinion.
In the mean time, you and the rest of those who oppose this law for LEO's and retired LEO's can complain, rant and rave like little kids who had their lolly pop taken away, because frankly I don't give a damn. I carry and will continue to carry all over this country and I will protect myself, my family and even you.
wolf_fire
New member
I would hardly call the 2nd Amendment right that all citizenry SHOULD have but has been taken away a LOLLYPOP.
Also, don't assume to much sir. I wear the badge of my Sheriff's department but am not paid for my services. I am fully trained as a LEO but since I do not get paid for it, I don't fit the criteria that this so called law suggests. So I certainly am not judging any cop.
I'm not ranting, I'm not raving. What am I saying is that 1) it is unconstitutional to say that just because there is a border between two states means that my right defend myself is no longer valid, and 2) cops are no more special than any other citizen in the United States. So, first our right had to be stripped, and THEN government officials (i.e. cops) had to get special privileges handed to them.
Sound fair? Sound legal? Sound constitutional? No, no and no.
Oh, please.... the guy who collects my garbage and takes it away every week has a more dangerous job than a LEO does. The farmer and rancher who works from sunrise to sunset and doesn't know if he will make enough money to feed his family the next month has a more dangerous job than a LEO does. The lumberjack who cut the wood that provides the roof over my head has a more dangerous job than a LEO does. If I had to live in a society without sanitation workers taking away the trash, without farmers and ranchers putting food in the grocery stores, or without LEOs, guess which profession I would say goodbye to first. I respect everyone equally until they give me a reason not to, and a person who thinks they deserve more respect for no other reason than they wear a uniform is a reason not to respect them.
We don't oppose the fact that LEO can have the legal ability to protect themselves wherever they happen to be. What we oppose is not having that same legal ability to protect ourselves and our family.
That's all fine and dandy - just better hope that if you or your family ever needs the assistance of a mere citizen that you happen to be in a location where that citizen can legally posses a gun:
https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/08/more-examples-of-armed-citizens-saving-cops-lives/
We are happy that you can protect yourself and your family. But you are just a pompous a$$ to insinuate that you are more deserving of that ability than the rest of us just because of the career you chose.
