"Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act"

[John in AR]

Bush signed this last week (after 10+ years of lobbying by LE groups); basically it supercedes state laws prohibiting the carry of concealed handguns for current or retired law enforcement officers. Was finally able to get it passed this time, due to the "homeland security" mindset that people are suddenly open to.

Take that, Missouri. :santa: We go to Branson and Silver Dollar City several times a year, and before this new law, even Missouri cops couldn't carry concealed in Missouri when off-duty. Ragingly stupid, yet true.

Finally, I won't be breaking the law next time we go to Branson... (And next week, when I go to PA.)

Now if we would see the same for private citizens too, not just cops. THAT would be a major step in the right direction.

[RIKA]

John, I'm glad for you guys that the bill passed but it sucks for the rest of us honest citizens. I'll probably be an old lady before I can carry in all states. What it does, in effect, is say that the lives of law enforcement are more valuable than the lives of ordinary citizens. In effect, it makes law officers uber citizens.

I do not mean to offend you but have to speak my mind on this issue as it is very important. The House and Senate are bowing to the LEO lobby while ignoring the rights of us that have no real voice.

Again, no offense. I'm sure that you feel the same but I had to say it anyway.

RIKA

[gripper]

I gotta concur with Rika;some CCW is a good starting point for the anti-2nd states(like mine),but both in this and other areas(like capital punishment)it tends to codify into law a double-standard.The only chance we had in recent years to giet a capital punishment bill here in Ma. had so many "special conditions"attached to it to implement it it would have been a wonder if ANYONE but a cop-killer would of been put down.I don't like or hate anyone based solely on their"position"as it were,but the whole notion that clipping a mugging victim(disarmed in Ma.,usually not trained or backed up)was "less of an offense" than the murder of an LEO?I think ALL murderers(defined as the deliberate and wrongful taking of an innoncent human life are worthy of the dirt nap;I also believe every free man and woman is the captain of their own soul.Part of that duty involves keeping body&soul together.Therefore any differing standard as to "who is allowed" the best means to defend their life just grates on me like you would'nt believe.This just breaks us all up into the whole"minders vs. the minded" layout.

[John in AR]

I agree; that's why I made sure to include the "now if we could see the same for everyone..." comment.

The (claimed) reason for LE-only application is the required qualification with the weapon. For this to apply to a person, even a retired leo has to qualify every year with their weapon.

Not trying to rub anyone's nose in anything; and I absolutely understand people being pissed about the double-standard of it. But I do believe it's at least "a step in the right direction". When a few states started opening up ccw laws, and crime statistics started getting better in those states, more states eventually followed suit. Hopefully, this will be one of those "initial" steps that will lead to even better things in the long run.

If nothing else, this may have a dampening effect on robberies of travellers. Used to be, anyone from out-of-state was presumed to be likely fair game, because it was illegal for anyone from out of state to be armed. Now, that's no longer true, albeit in an admittedly too-limited sense.

Believe me, if/when it's opened up wider (as ccw laws have become in recent years), I'll be as happy about it as anyone.

[Half elf]

I was under the impression that the law was to afford equal protection to all citizens, what we have now sounds alot like Animal Farm "All animals are created equal, Some are more equal than others". Do not take offense, I just feel left out, when on acticve duty I could carry anywhere, and didn't have to ask permission, now I am just another "Subject", and dont get the priveledge of armed travel.

[andy]

if LEO's had to pass a REALISTIC skill and knowledge test, 90+%of them would not be armed,either, believe that. :-) 99% of civilian gunowners are hopelessly ignorant and inept about the subject.

I am reminded of a friend of my dad's, whom we happened to go see, when I was about 17. He wanted to show me his 'home defense" gun, a Ruger .22 auto pistol that he "kept loaded". He looked and looked, couldn't FIND it. His wife came home, he asked her, and then said. "I TOLD you not to be moving my gun!". Rather like they'd had THAT 'discussion" BEFORE. :-)

[Aslan]

if LEO's had to pass a REALISTIC skill and knowledge test, 90+%of them would not be armed,either, believe that. :-) 99% of civilian gunowners are hopelessly ignorant and inept about the subject.

I am reminded of a friend of my dad's, whom we happened to go see, when I was about 17. He wanted to show me his 'home defense" gun, a Ruger .22 auto pistol that he "kept loaded". He looked and looked, couldn't FIND it. His wife came home, he asked her, and then said. "I TOLD you not to be moving my gun!". Rather like they'd had THAT 'discussion" BEFORE. :-)

I can't speak for all leo's, nor about your "friend's dad", but today I think you'd find things very different. Most PD's are taking fire arms training and handling very seriously - it's too easy for them to be sued. The levels of training are much better than they were just 5 years ago. This is a trend that will continue.

Granted, that was a blanket statement that will not hold true for all depts in all cities, but I beleive in the main it is the case.

Plus, I know that the depts here hold monthly challenges to push the officiers into having better shooting skills.

Once the law goes into effect, people should be able to sue under the equal protection clause. Many states already require qualifications to get and keep your ccw. (even if they are simple) I think that you also get into the full faith and credit issues of interstate commerce (think drive's licenses), with a federal recognition of the Leo's the door is opened.

:devil:

[John in AR]

I...Once the law goes into effect, people should be able to sue under the equal protection clause. Many states already require qualifications to get and keep your ccw. (even if they are simple) I think that you also get into the full faith and credit issues of interstate commerce (think drive's licenses), with a federal recognition of the Leo's the door is opened.

:devil:

Hadn't considered that; the 'equal protection clause'. That's a good idea, and I hope it happens.


Unfortunately, I have to agree about the lack of handgun skill on the part of many cops. While I shoot a fair amount, I know that's not the case with most of the guys on my dept; or on my former dept. Probably 5-10% are 'gun nuts' and any good; the rest just don't practice at all. Just the once a year (sometimes even less) dept qualification, which entails just 50 rounds fired. Some guys, that's literally all they put through their duty guns.

[Aslan]

that's too bad on the training issue. I know that one of the depts here that I have contact with, requires quite a bit of training and monthly range time for all officers that carry a sidearm.

This includes time in the shoot house and FATS.

Too bad that's not the case everywhere....

:devil:

[84 C4]

Here in Texas, the local Sportsman's Outlet has had a number of accidental dischages during officer training courses. In one instance, and officer was showing how to dismantle a Glock (without checking to see if it was loaded), and it discharged. The bullet ricocheted off the floor, knicked someone's leg, and lodged itself in the dry wall. :blowup01:

[Glenn Bartley]

I always wonder what the deal was about exempting feds from state laws in regard to carrying. I am a federal agent and can legally carry a firearm in any of the 50 states as well as in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and other US possessions. I can understand it for retired feds or current or retired state or local officers but not for feds who are still on the job. I can also understand how this sucks for non LEO types - just regular folks. It really is an infringement on your rights by way of strengthing government rights; and even though it applies to retired officers they have to be qualified in order to carry and guess who sets the qual requirements.

[84 C4]

It's a power grab. The Federal Gov't has steadily been eating away at the rights and authority of the States as well as the citizens. Not a smart move in my opinion. Here in the US of A, people don't tolerate that kind of crap. Unless the Federal Gov't starts sacrificing it's ill gotten power, another rebellion would be all but inevitable.

Before America was even 75 years old, it suffered 3 rebellions. Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Civil War. Many historians also consider the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's to be a Civil War.

[RIKA]

At least a fair number of states recognize the CCW licenses from other states. Thats a good start despite the FedGov. And yeah, we're being screwed by our gov ... as usual.

RIKA

[Glenn Bartley]

Are we screwing ourselves? We are the government, and no one here should ever forget that.
:beer:

You should vote what you believe, write leters to your representatives, and join the NRA and other gun rights groups. You should also try to influence others to join our cause. Take a friend shooting :madeuce: - someone who is somewhat anti gun - convert them - show them the fun they can have, and the power they can have to defend their own freedoms.

Act responsibly with your guns too, it goes a long way to do favorable things for us, but yet no where near as long a way against us as does one stupid act of an irresponsible gun handler who screws up.

[RIKA]

Glenn, I've done all those things you have suggested and they have had little if any effect. Letters to Congressmen yield polite noncommital replies and then they vote whatever they feel like. Much of the problem lies with the bureacrats who actually run the country. These non-elected civil service officials who think their jobs are for their lifetime. They, like our political political leaders, see themselves as above the law and think of themselves as our Masters and we the people as their serfs.

My .02

RIKA

[SatCong]

Does this present any dangers vis a vis states rights? ...just a thought.
Actually it makes sense to believe leo would have a higher standard of proficiency with firearms. Therefore, they, with more familiarity, will be the first to enjoy this federal mandate. I believe it further opens the door on acceptance/use of weapons as an everyday requirement of any normal citizen. The next step, a short one, I hope, will be to grandfather in all those who currently have the permit, then a new fed standard for those who have yet to qualify. Anyway, that's one scenario!
SatCong

[84 C4]

We are the government


That's a half-truth, America's a republic, not a democracy. Both have the same overall meaning: "rule by the ignorant."

I support the Timocracy: "rule by the elite," if you've read the book (not the movie, but it does briefly touch on it) Starship Troopers, you'll know what I mean.

[Glenn Bartley]

No we are really the government, and we choose to have elected officials to represent us. If enough of us wanted that changed then we would change it. regardless of whether or not you believe that, you should do all you can to influence how things are run in this country which includes voting, writing and otherwise contacting your representatives, becoming active in groups that support your point of view and express your values (possibly like the NRA or other pro firearms group), making monetary contributions to political candidates or lobby groups, and so forth. If you think that calls for change are unheeded then why do you think it is that this an is about to expire, and how do you think it got passed in the first place - because of all the whining of the bed wetting ultra liberals who cry the loudest. It is about time the other side started to make some more noise than do the bed wetters, and in fact this started to happen post 9/11. many people have contacted their reps to express their beliefs about easing up gun control, and many people purchased firearms post 9/11 – in fact those purchases went through the roof right after 9/11. Things like that send a message, but you still need to do it in writing and by sending support to they who would support us. Make noise it will be heard, and when the din is loud enough it will be heeded. When you take on a defeatist attitude you have defeated yourself.

[84 C4]

No, we elect politicians based on what they promise, and the ones which get elected support policies which the population support...and are within Constitutional boundaries.

But politicians lie to us and assault the Constitution, things the people of America disapprove of. People don't lie to themselves (as a general rule).

Also, we can only INFLUENCE the people in Gov't, meaning they don't have to listen to us. If the people were the Gov't, we wouldn't need to set policies through indirect methods.

[Glenn Bartley]

We influence our elected representatives to government office. If you do not understand that about this country then try a stint in Germany, or Haiti, or North Korea for a difference. Different countries of very different natures where your say as a citizen would mean lots less than here. The people are the government here in the USA - no doubt in my mind, as I guess there is no doubt in yours that we are not.

[KJUN]

I support the Timocracy: "rule by the elite," if you've read the book (not the movie, but it does briefly touch on it) Starship Troopers, you'll know what I mean.

Well, not really. The governemnt in Starship Troopers, which DOES have a lot of good points, isn't ruled by any "elite" group unless you consider the current system in the US to be elite based on age, etc. ANYONE had the right to vote once they demonstrated that they put the safety of the populace ahead of their own via a term of civil service - that is usually very dangerous - not less that two years in length. Neat idea, but not perfect.

I suggest that ANYONE who reads Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" also follows it up by reading "The Forever War" by Haldeman. (I think that is the right author.) That'll give you both sides of the coin in a manner of speaking.

KJ

[KJUN]

It's a power grab. The Federal Gov't has steadily been eating away at the rights and authority of the States as well as the citizens. Not a smart move in my opinion. Here in the US of A, people don't tolerate that kind of crap. Unless the Federal Gov't starts sacrificing it's ill gotten power, another rebellion would be all but inevitable.

Before America was even 75 years old, it suffered 3 rebellions. Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Civil War. Many historians also consider the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's to be a Civil War.

I'd like to point out that the War of Northern Aggression was not truly a "Civil War" by any definition and really shouldn't be called such. Although I can never accept what resulted from that horrible day in Appomattox, I do NOT want to ever seen it repeated again here in the US. I hope it never comes to anything close to that again, but a civil war it still was not.

As an aside, I have forgiven Grant for his actions. Lincoln probably was one of the best people to help the southern states even if he did NOT help states rights, etc. Sheridan (especially) and Sherman should have been tried - and executed - for war crimes.

KJ

[Glenn Bartley]

As should have the commanding officer at Andersonville.

[KJUN]

As should have the commanding officer at Andersonville.

Is that worse than the thousands of confederate ex-soldiers that were SUPPOSED to have been released that actually died in union camps AFTER cessation of defensive actions by southerners?

Besides, confederate soldiers were dying from the same things as the POW there, so we certainly didn't treat our guys to a world of wealth while starving POWs. If the Yankees hadn't burned our crops (to starve civilians) maybe we would have had food to feed the POW.......

[84 C4]

We influence our elected representatives to government office. If you do not understand that about this country then try a stint in Germany, or Haiti, or North Korea for a difference. Different countries of very different natures where your say as a citizen would mean lots less than here. The people are the government here in the USA - no doubt in my mind, as I guess there is no doubt in yours that we are not.


Let's just say we look at it from different angles and leave it at that.

As for the switch of topic to the "War between the States," I aint touchen it.

[andy]

the ONLY reason that we have it any better than any other country is that we have fighting guns. Not slowfire target guns, but AR-15's, etc, which can easily be fitted with cans. Such a gun makes one man VERY capable of hitting a dozen hotshots, despite all their bodyguards, and they KNOW it,too. Not all at once, of course, but capable of getting AROUND to a dozen, with impunity, if you go at it right.

[KJUN]

Glenn,

I wish you wouldn't have deleted that last post. I enjoyed reading it and no offense taken, at least on my part. I was just too busy working this weekend to reply promptly.

KJ

[Hard Rock]

This law is a bad law but it does open the door for challenge under equal protection act and such. It'll either be crushed in court or it will open the door for nationwide CCW.

Mike

[John in AR]

Hopefully, I don't need to say it, but will anyway.

I would VERY strongly support the nationwide CCW approach. We honor driver licenses and marriage licenses on a national scale, so why not weapon licenses. (Although I hate the term "weapon license" myself.)

[TODD 3465]

I know it's simplistic to this disscusion but what part of ...."shall not be infringed." don't they understand?!!!

I've carried in places without a permit because a dang well needed to. Southside of Chicago is one of them. Hell even with a permit I'd bet you'd get railroaded there in court. There is Shoot Scoot and Shutup.

[Glenn Bartley]

I wish you wouldn't have deleted that last post. I enjoyed reading it and no offense taken, at least on my part. I was just too busy working this weekend to reply promptly. My post was deleted because I thought it over and it was way too much in regard to what you said. Happy you were not offended, I did not mean to offend, but thought it might so I deleted it.