Chicago Won't Let Retired Cops Carry Concealed Guns
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
Ok on the surface, but there's one flaw in this logic. No, there are 2 flaws.
1> If it is a National CCW, that means that the Feds would be in charge of it. That would be a positive thing if the Feds were generally in favor of RKBA as it says in the 2nd Amendment. But I can't count on it, especially since power at the federal level tends to gravitate towards the "blue" areas and ideologies. As it is, at least SOME areas have somewhat reasonable RKBA policies and that is preferrable to having NO areas that have reasonable RKBA policies.
2> A National CCW that has to be applied for would be an affirmation that the RKBA really is no such thing -- because true RIGHTS are something that are inherent, and as such are not something that can be granted or revoked by the authorities, they require no permissions nor permits. Instead, that inherent right becomes a privilege that can be granted or revoked as the powers that be decide.
XavierBreath
New member
azurefly,
Well put.
Well put.
Wildcard,
Even as an active duty military person, they are STILL under the law of the state/city/county that they are in. They are STILL under "civilian law" and will be prosecuted for breaking it.
When I was active duty and stationed in NY (Griffiss), when I stepped foot off the base I was subject to NY's gun laws. I still had to get a permit to have (handguns) and if I wished to carry, I STILL had to go through state law to get the permit (and they don't issue them as we all know, especially when I was there in '92/'93 IIRC).
I didn't have any special "rights" just because I was military, the same goes for those that retired around the area. Off Base and off duty, we were civilians, and we could and would be held to the law of the area/state.
Wayne
Even as an active duty military person, they are STILL under the law of the state/city/county that they are in. They are STILL under "civilian law" and will be prosecuted for breaking it.
When I was active duty and stationed in NY (Griffiss), when I stepped foot off the base I was subject to NY's gun laws. I still had to get a permit to have (handguns) and if I wished to carry, I STILL had to go through state law to get the permit (and they don't issue them as we all know, especially when I was there in '92/'93 IIRC).
I didn't have any special "rights" just because I was military, the same goes for those that retired around the area. Off Base and off duty, we were civilians, and we could and would be held to the law of the area/state.
Wayne
Do you take that same view on State issued permits? Remember, if you have get a permission slip to exercise a right, it is no longer a right.
I agree with you, I DO NOT want the FEDS to be in control of a national CCW. I would prefer a Vermont style National CCW. NO paperwork, NO FEES, NO premits. Just Carry.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Chicago is doing this to get legal parameters
Because of the federal law that say's retired can carry.
This Thread shows the contempt for LEO among quite a few posters.
They (city) no longer want to take the responsibility for their officers they want the Federal law to relieve them of the responsibility for the men they nurtured and created.
Sort of like the Army after changing the person to a solider and messing them up they don't want the responsibility to get the ones that are in need of some counciling any help.
I think the city is typical, offer you a contract, then renege. I don't believe they can win in court but it will be interesting.
Sort of like the sheriff in the old days now he goes home, and they tell him he can't wear a gun in town because he is no longer sheriff. 'Death sentence'.
Harley
Because of the federal law that say's retired can carry.
This Thread shows the contempt for LEO among quite a few posters.
They (city) no longer want to take the responsibility for their officers they want the Federal law to relieve them of the responsibility for the men they nurtured and created.
Sort of like the Army after changing the person to a solider and messing them up they don't want the responsibility to get the ones that are in need of some counciling any help.
I think the city is typical, offer you a contract, then renege. I don't believe they can win in court but it will be interesting.
Sort of like the sheriff in the old days now he goes home, and they tell him he can't wear a gun in town because he is no longer sheriff. 'Death sentence'.
Harley
gb in ga,
Agreed. But, the way I look at this is that the Federal Government is there to ensure that all of our Rights are protected. Since the 2nd falls under the Federal Bill of Rights, it is their duty to protect those rights are not infringed as outlined.
So therefore, since the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government has the power to ensure that the States don't try to remove, infringe, or change those Rights, and can only be done so with a Constitutional change.
And before you say.. well, no... Let's take one, the 14th which gave equal Rights to any American no matter what. If a state, let's say Georgia, wanted to infringe on the Rights of the Black community and passed a law stating that all Blacks must use a separate bathroom, separate water fountains, and sit in the back of the bus, then they should be able to do so right? I mean, it's States rights to do so if you use the same logic as it pertains to the 2nd. But they can't. Why can't they, because it was put into the Bill of Rights, a Federal document, that this cannot be done. It should be protected via the Federal Government that no state can make such laws against a Right as outlined in t he Bill of Rights.
(I know that the 14th wasn't in the first ten original, and that as worded gave what should have been given in the first place with the words in the Preamble, All Men are Created Equal and are endowed with certain Rights, but even back then, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being twisted to suit the wants of others)
Let me add an example:
I live in Oregon. I can own and have "assault weapons w/all the evil cosmetics", magazines over 10 rounds, and SMG's/MG's/SBR/SBS. Now, if I go south of my position with an AR, with a 30rd mag, the bayonet lug and bayonet attached, and the magazine is removable, I am now a felon. If I go north with a SMG, I am a felon. Yet did I leave the US of A? Did I go to another county?
No, to the south I went into California, to the north I went into washington.
I sometimes have to ask myself what country I live in. Is it the United States of America, or is it the United Countries of America. You would think that since you live in the same country and are American's that all laws would be uniform within the States. What is legal in one is legal in all and what is illegal in one is illegal in all. That if an American has a freedom in one State, that American should have that same freedom in all the States. Not having to worry about which checkpoint that he or she passes and what the law may or may not be as they go through it.
Wayne
Agreed. But, the way I look at this is that the Federal Government is there to ensure that all of our Rights are protected. Since the 2nd falls under the Federal Bill of Rights, it is their duty to protect those rights are not infringed as outlined.
So therefore, since the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government has the power to ensure that the States don't try to remove, infringe, or change those Rights, and can only be done so with a Constitutional change.
And before you say.. well, no... Let's take one, the 14th which gave equal Rights to any American no matter what. If a state, let's say Georgia, wanted to infringe on the Rights of the Black community and passed a law stating that all Blacks must use a separate bathroom, separate water fountains, and sit in the back of the bus, then they should be able to do so right? I mean, it's States rights to do so if you use the same logic as it pertains to the 2nd. But they can't. Why can't they, because it was put into the Bill of Rights, a Federal document, that this cannot be done. It should be protected via the Federal Government that no state can make such laws against a Right as outlined in t he Bill of Rights.
(I know that the 14th wasn't in the first ten original, and that as worded gave what should have been given in the first place with the words in the Preamble, All Men are Created Equal and are endowed with certain Rights, but even back then, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being twisted to suit the wants of others)
Let me add an example:
I live in Oregon. I can own and have "assault weapons w/all the evil cosmetics", magazines over 10 rounds, and SMG's/MG's/SBR/SBS. Now, if I go south of my position with an AR, with a 30rd mag, the bayonet lug and bayonet attached, and the magazine is removable, I am now a felon. If I go north with a SMG, I am a felon. Yet did I leave the US of A? Did I go to another county?
No, to the south I went into California, to the north I went into washington.
I sometimes have to ask myself what country I live in. Is it the United States of America, or is it the United Countries of America. You would think that since you live in the same country and are American's that all laws would be uniform within the States. What is legal in one is legal in all and what is illegal in one is illegal in all. That if an American has a freedom in one State, that American should have that same freedom in all the States. Not having to worry about which checkpoint that he or she passes and what the law may or may not be as they go through it.
Wayne
Yes. Exactly. It matters not whether it is the Feds, a State, or a local municipality that does it. Rights don't need permission, and if permission is required it is not a right but a privilege, no matter who is demanding the permission slip. When a permission slip (permit) is required, it then becomes a favor to be granted or withheld at the whim of those in power.
I would rather have to put up with the permission slip than not be able to be armed at all, but it would be even better if our rights as free citizens were actually recognized as being real rights not needing permission.
. Theoretically you are correct. But in practice? Can you count on it? Just because it says something in the Bill or Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution, doesn't mean that you can count on the law of the land being upheld in a just manner, or in accordance with what the law of the land actually says. Just look at the travesty of the Eminent Domain cases of late. I mean, look at the 9th and 10th Ammendments, also part of the Bill of Rights -- those are completely ignored now, the Feds jump into any matter they want, never mind the enumeration of powers principle. They found a loophole and have exploited it to the exclusion of all else. I mean, How do you think we got this bloated Federal government in the first place? The Commerce Clause being misinterpreted, that's how. No, what you need are a set of good, sound appellate justices and Supreme Court justices who will actually apply and interpret the law as written. Until then, I won't trust the Feds to do anything except for what is politically expedient to those in power at the moment.
That's just the way it is.
XavierBreath
New member
How is the belief that all citizens should receive equal treatment "contempt for LEO"?
I think you missed my point. Do you think that cons, and ex-cons, declare retired officers off limits because they aren't 'active'?
As I said, there are no gentleman's rules for revenge. Because of the contacts the officer's make during the course and scope of their duties, they are higher profile targets ALL the time...even after they are retired.
In my own experience, I've read letters from cons coming into the jail asking if officer so-and-so was still working, where he could be found, among other requests. It's quite common.
No, I never said I did. But recall that I did ask you for SOME sort of CITATION of stats or facts that speak of how common this kind of retribution thing actually is.
You have so far come up with nothing but a claim.
And further, you haven't satisfactorily (well, at all) rebutted my assertion that ANYONE -- retired LEO or not -- can have psychos who take up a grudge against them. Could be someone you sued in civil court. Could be the ex boyfriend or ex husband of your girlfriend. What, are you asserting that ONLY LEOs can have dangerous people looking for vengeance?
You seem to think that we actively want LEOs not to be able to carry after they quit, when actually we're just bugged that they get the privilege when we don't -- as though our lives are not as worthy of defending. And now that the Chicago ex-cops' carry right has been stripped, they're finding out what it's like to have the law forbid you your defensive weapon. Sucks, don't it?
So maybe this will make cops more sympathetic to the burdens of the common man (and woman). Maybe NOW they might speak up for the rights of ALL of us? Ya think?-azurefly
DonR101395
New member
I have no contempt for LEO's. My wife is a civilian LEO I am active duty military. However, I don't see a need to extend retired leo's anymore priviledges than anyone else. I carry an M4, does that mean I should be allowed full auto weapons after I retire? Only if everyone else is allowed full auto weapons where I reside.
Wildcard the definition I posted was of the web dictionary. I agree with you, but I didn't write the definition.
Wildcard the definition I posted was of the web dictionary. I agree with you, but I didn't write the definition.
Oh, really? And just who is saying or even implying such? It seems to me that the opposite is true, that this action by the grabbers seems to have presented an unintended opportunity to create a better rapport between the LEO community and the general citizenry pertaining to RKBA. Some haven't expressed that idea very gracefully and have been bitter (justly so, IMHO), but in the long run there is a realization that this may be a good thing in disguise.
Why can't you see past your anti-anti-cop prejudice? It isn't about you, it isn't about cop hating. It is about the greater good of universal RKBA.
Ok, you have established a valid practical need for retired LEO's to be able to be armed. You really didn't need the argument, though. I support their RKBA on general principles of the rights of free men to be armed without obvious reason or need -- just because it is a right. My gripe has been the relative lack of such support from them towards the general citizenry.
Now, what group should I work towards pertaining to RKBA: Retired LEO's, or the general public. I maintain that if RKBA is recognized pertaining to everyone, there doesn't need to be a special case for retired LEO's, but if target work is done pertaining to retired LEO's first, then the rest of the public does not itself benefit.
Where this gets sidetracked is going to be when the LEO community get's it's hackles up (as it should), but instead of supporting RKBA in general, they instead just stick up for their fellow (retired) LEO's, the public be damned. This has historically been their MO.
mrex21 said:
No, it's called, "Why should we be sympathetic that they took away a right that you had, that we have NEVER had?"
No one of us joe citizens TOOK away the cops' rights, nor did we even cheer it after that was done by the political jerks. But you ask us to be sympathetic? To go back out to champion the restoration of the retired LEOs' right to carry?
We did not "targeted persecute" anyone. At this point, they're just like us, now. But why on earth should we be all fretting over their misfortune, when their NEW misfortune has been our misfortune all along?
We're not saying, "F*ck those cops." We're just wondering why they want us to boo-hoo over them when they left us out in the cold when they were taken care of -- possibly even busted some of us for illegal carry themselves.
-azurefly