The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 3, 2009, 07:52 PM   #51
Dex Sinister
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2002
Location: The People's Republic of California
Posts: 172
Quote:
There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders, usually the ones asking about where to get their CCW badge. I write it off to being guys who failed the psych evals or the types who would prefer to move to Montana, declare themselves to be a sovereign country, and then would be judge and police chief. They want the badges and perceived power so badly. Power freaks are everywhere. Even if they had managed to pass the psych testing, they'd be real unhappy to learn that real law enforcement still involves many, many levels of supervisors, prosecutors, and politicos reviewing your work.
Well, I guess you can see it that way if you want to. The premise is also understandable from from a purely practical basis: Non-LEO CCW'ers want a lack of stupid restrictions on carrying, and LEO's want a lack of stupid restrictions on carrying. But treating the two populations differently allows the anti-gun crowd to accomplish two things:
  • disallowing non_LEO carry in varied and strange ways, and
  • not bringing forth the considerable political clout of the police to serve the same agenda as non-LEO carry.

All your anger at alleged "anti-LEO sentiment" here aside, there is nothing terribly sinister about noticing that police in general are seen as having considerable political clout -- and often appear to care more, and try harder, to protect their own carry privileges than the CCW rights non-LEO's. So there's noting terribly sinister about speculating that deliberately aiming to put "ya'll" in the same boat with "us'ns" might be an effective way to make sure that everyone possessed more carry rights.

Or said another way, if the distinction was erased, then anti-gunners would find it more difficult restricting everyone's rights, if doing so also restricted the carry privileges of police at the same time.
Dex Sinister is offline  
Old June 3, 2009, 08:37 PM   #52
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
  • disallowing non_LEO carry in varied and strange ways, and
  • not bringing forth the considerable political clout of the police to serve the same agenda as non-LEO carry.
Bingo. Obviously...i couldn't state it that clearly myself. If the two groups were on the same page, maybe some of the stated animosity...would diminish thru argueing a common cause, instead of argueing as if each side has some kind of ulterior motive. Just a thought...it's only 2a after all.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old June 3, 2009, 09:11 PM   #53
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,364
In answer to the op question

Not very fast.

As someone once said "pointing to the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming."

Cops (of all stripes) "enjoy" certain priveleges not enjoyed by the general public. The also "enjoy" some responsibilities not shared by the general public. Whining to get some of that reduced or eliminated in the hope of getting more for us is the wrong way to go about it.

Those people who are in positions of power, and oppose anyone (including police) having/carrying a gun when not "on duty" would be delighted with such an approach. And I reckon the police (and a number of the rest of us) would be upset.

I do believe any attempt to proceed with this argument will only result in a net loss for the firearms community, the police, and ultimately, the general population as well.

Consider that, in those areas which for bid ordinary citizens concealed carry, but allow it for off duty police, that there are at least some good people out there who are armed!

There is merit to the idea that they are no different from the rest of us, except for their job (and the training that goes with it), but the argument should be "we should have what they have", and not "they shouldn't have it, because we don't". Thats just plain wrong headed. Sorry.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old June 4, 2009, 01:31 AM   #54
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
We in no way benefit from removing police ability to carry nationwide.

We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.
Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 09:48 AM   #55
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagonman
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.
Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?
I can't say for ilbob, but in my opinion, yes.

Can anyone name from what derived authority the Federal Government can interfere in the domestic police powers of the individual States?

I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

I am, at the least, consistent with my views of Commerce Clause abuse.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 10:36 AM   #56
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.
Isn't more freedom a good thing?
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 12:42 PM   #57
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Freedom is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of various laws. Having said that, however, it is a legal maxim that all laws are considered to meet constitutional muster unless and until declared otherwise by the judiciary. Thus HR 218 is constitutional at this time.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 01:06 PM   #58
tube_ee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2004
Posts: 492
It's really about a very simple principle.

You job does not make you special.

It's your job. In return for doing it, you get a paycheck, and whatever other benefits you. either singly or collectively, depending on whether you're represented by a union or you're own your own, have managed to negotiate from your employer.

And nothing else.

When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.

Your job does not make you special.

It's just that simple.

--Shannon
tube_ee is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 01:29 PM   #59
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,456
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagonman
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.

Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?

I can't say for ilbob, but in my opinion, yes.

Can anyone name from what derived authority the Federal Government can interfere in the domestic police powers of the individual States?

I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

I am, at the least, consistent with my views of Commerce Clause abuse.
__________________
Al Norris

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Jugiter vigilo, æternus suspicious.
I'm no lawyer, but looking at past acts you are wrong in this matter.

First: The States determine that LE can carry (most require it). Now the feds have, with HR 218 have decided to reconize the states right to determine that LE Officers (active and retired) can carry via the commerice clause (granted a catch all prase) much like one state's driver's license is reconized in other states.

Second: the Feds, right or wrong do have some control of Local & State LE agencies via federal funding. Along the same lines as the DWI/DUI laws (legal limits, etc).

You talk of special rights for LE but neglect to mention added burdens placed on LE & retirees. An example, In Wyoming there is no requirement for any qualification courses to obtain a CC permit. Yes you can attend one, but you can get a CC pemit in Wyoming by presenting your DD214, or attending a hunting safety class. (There is no shooting requirements for Hunter Safety in Wyoming). So in theory you can get a CC permit without ever having fired a gun. And that pemit can be renued every 5 years, again without demistrating you can shoot or have ever shot. WHEREAS, Under HR 218 to carry you are required to qualify yearly on your departments qualification course. Retirees have to qualify on their Depts or if they moved, the coursed used by the new location's LE standards. This sometimes is difficult because few departments will allow no members to qualify for liability purposes.

I'm a bit differant, I have my own range and the Local LE officers use it to qualify when the weather prohibits them from getting to their range and I provide free training to LE officers. So I get my yearly qualification taken care of. Now, based on your reasoning, others who carry under HR218 have a complaint because I get special treatment regardinng the yearly qualification required by HR 218.

There are differant standards for carrying under HR 218 but it goes both ways.

I'm all for a national CC law as I believe our founding fathers intended when they came up with the second ammendment. Until that happens I will not begrudge anyone who can carry legally. Thats like saying no one should carry because there are still states that prohibit CC permits.

This whole conversation is childish, borders on cop bashing. If you think HR218 is unconstitutional by all means file suite, thats your right, however I doubt you'll get very far, for a suite to be sucessful you have to show you are injured in some way. I dont see how HR 218 makes non - LE officers an injured party. But GO FOR IT.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 02:41 PM   #60
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Tubee, tell you what, tell my department I don't have to take police action 24/7 regardless of my duty status and I will agree with you. Until such time please do not opine when you are mistaken in your assertion.

This Police bashing is getting tiresome.
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 03:11 PM   #61
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
As someone once said "pointing to the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming."
That someone was Dries Gloton in Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 04:26 PM   #62
tube_ee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2004
Posts: 492
Then get a different job.

Quote:
Tubee, tell you what, tell my department I don't have to take police action 24/7 regardless of my duty status and I will agree with you. Until such time please do not opine when you are mistaken in your assertion.

This Police bashing is getting tiresome.
It's just a job. It's a dangerous job, and one with crappy working hours, but it's just a job. You're fairly well paid for doing it, and you can quit at any time. But even if it were the most dangerous job out there (it isn't), and even if you were under contract not to quit (you aren't), it still would not give you any more rights and privileges than any other citizen. (I'd use the word "civilian", since cops are civilians, but I wouldn't extend special rights to members of the military either... and I was one.)

It's not "police bashing" to hold to a principle of the equality of all citizens before the law, or to assert that one's choice of employment shouldn't grant any special status.

You guys to a tough job, and one that needs done. But that does not make you special, nor entitle you to the free exercise of basic rights that are denied to your fellow citizens.

I fail to see how there is any aspect of "cop-bashing", which is all too often defined as "any position which is opposed by, or tends to diminish the superior status of, the police," in any of what is being said. If people were saying that police officers were less to be trusted with concealed weapons than the rest of us, and that they should be restricted in their rights based on their freely-chosen profession, , that would be cop bashing, and would be deservedly called out as such, by me and many others. But the reverse statement, that all citizens, regardless of their freely-chosen profession, are entitled to the same rights and the same protections of those rights, is by no means bashing anyone.

You are not special. I am not special. We are all equal before the law.

--Shannon
tube_ee is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 04:35 PM   #63
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,698
If the officer is mandated to respond when off duty - do we agree that carrying is not an exemption?

So, Wagonman was talking to that specific aspect.

Do we want officers who are not on the official clock to be specifically instructed to take no action as an officer when not on the clock, even if not mandate to do such. So they would have no arrest powers if not on the clock?

Again - we should try to expand civilian rights rather than go the other way.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 04:50 PM   #64
LaBulldog
Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 55
Quote:
How fast would CCW restrictions relax for the rest of us, if the police exemptions were done away with, meaning CCW in restaurants, schools, crossing state lines, etc. Why doesn't the NRA go after the police exemptions so that we all end up on the same page?
Where I'm from, police are police 24 hours a day. They have the duty and responsibility anywhere in their jurisdiction. Therefore they carry anywhere with few exceptions.

Quote:
You're fairly well paid for doing it,
You are kidding right?
LaBulldog is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 05:05 PM   #65
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
Quote:
Quote:
I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.
Isn't more freedom a good thing?
HR218 did not increase freedom by one iota. It extended a privilege that a few people have based solely on their status as government employees.

it would be like the feds decreeing that some subset of government employees could vote in every state, regardless of the law in that state.

Quote:
Do we want officers who are not on the official clock to be specifically instructed to take no action as an officer when not on the clock, even if not mandate to do such. So they would have no arrest powers if not on the clock?
My answer is yes. The number of off duty arrests is miniscule anyway.

If it was me, they would leave their badge at the station house when they go off duty, and would pick it back up when they go back on duty, just like their radio, and squad car. I do realize this might have some logistical issues that make it impractical.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

Last edited by ilbob; June 4, 2009 at 05:12 PM.
ilbob is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 05:08 PM   #66
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,698
Average is 45K - with some places down to 20K and big cities up to 70K.

What's fairly well paid mean? I don't think these are exhorbant salaries compared to real winners who are the captains of our industries which are failing?

45K to deal with bad people isn't that much money.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 05:15 PM   #67
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
$45k for a 20-24 yr old high school grad ain't bad either.

Unfortunately, even the high end isn't enough to tempt me. I don't think I'd make a good cop.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 05:28 PM   #68
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
Quote:
$45k for a 20-24 yr old high school grad ain't bad either.
I don't know if that is a good average, but around here its pretty typical. But I don't know that mere HS is typical anymore. most rpefer at least a 2 year degree or military experience.

Quote:
I don't think I'd make a good cop.
Like any other job, you have to want to do it to be any good at it.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 05:30 PM   #69
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
most rpefer at least a 2 year degree or military experience.
Around here, they will take you straight out of high school at 18. If you are female or a minority, they will actively recruit you. A few weeks at the local community college "police academy" course and you are good to go.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old June 4, 2009, 10:59 PM   #70
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
My answer is yes. The number of off duty arrests is miniscule anyway.
So is the NEED for carrying a gun. You sure are opining like someone who is anti RKBA.

Quote:
If it was me, they would leave their badge at the station house when they go off duty, and would pick it back up when they go back on duty, just like their radio, and squad car. I do realize this might have some logistical issues that make it impractical.
Yeah, that's the ticket, why have off-duty Cops out there de facto patrolling for free. Sounds suspiciously like the concept of having an armory at the station and pass the gun to the next shift another idea of the antis
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 05:18 AM   #71
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
I would love to be "off duty" and ignore any issue I came across "off duty". However, I am required (not suggested, not allowed if I want, required) to carry my gun, badge and ID at all times. I am also required to act if I should see something "off duty", state stautes specifically spell out that we are never "off duty" unless out of the state. Failing to act can get you fired.

Your job can grant some "special" privileges that others do not enjoy. Such as when I worked at a garage I used the wrecker for free if my car broke down. My brother drove a pool water tanker and got a free tank of pool water every summer, when he worked for the Thruway he got a free EZ Pass for his car. If cops get to carry a gun places where other peolple are not allowed to, so be it. As we speak, somewhere, somehow, someone is doing something that I can't do and someone, somewhere, is doing something you can't either.

ilbob- I guess you are an expert and can explain in detail the numbers of off duty arrests that occur around the country. Please enlighten the rest of us how many off duty arrests have been made by state and city? What is the exact number that makes it miniscule? I could quote you the numbers in my state, because I know them, but I don't have a clue about the rest of the country. Maybe a slightly less sweeping statement about off duty arrests is in order. You sound like a spoiled child " They do something I can't do, waaahhh!" Great, and rich people can buy a brand new car and my truck is 8 years old, get over it.

Last edited by Conn. Trooper; June 5, 2009 at 05:25 AM.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 08:06 AM   #72
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.

Your job does not make you special.
It has nothing to do with being "special". Public safety workers take an oath to protect the public, either on or off duty. Some may not follow it, but a lot of us do. I'm a paramedic, and lets say I'm off duty and your mom or dad is having a heart attack or worse...you'd be ok with me turning my head and walking the other way? Your job and our jobs aren't the same. Cops are the same, off duty they can still do their job if someone needs their help. Please don't compare apples to oranges on this.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 10:23 AM   #73
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.
Your job does not make you special.
It's just that simple.
No, it is not that simple. As a general rule, when the LEO is not at work he is still under the control and authority of his agency, and still has an obligation to perform his job under certain circumstances. Many states still mandate that a LEO is considered to be on duty 24/7, as do many agency SOPs. The job doesn't make you special, but the job itself is special in the requirements it has and the duties it imposes on the person who takes the job.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 11:36 AM   #74
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Quote:
When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.
So you forget everything you know about engineering when you leave work.

Cops have "special" rights that correspond to our "special" responsibilities.

Frankly, most of our "special" powers or rights are no ones business---kinda like your CCW is only your concern.
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 5, 2009, 11:54 AM   #75
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,456
Sounds like Ibob flunked the "hello test" once too often.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15279 seconds with 7 queries