Chicago Won't Let Retired Cops Carry Concealed Guns

IF everyone gets to carry, there is no problem. I want everybody that wants to carry, to be able to carry. Retired LEO's included. Lets just bypass the special law for special groups.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Well, that's why I support CCW for all citizens.

I would not rebutt that assertion because I agree with it, albeit with one stipulation. LEO's simply come into contact with more miscreants, on a daily basis, than lay-citizens. Thus...through sheer numbers of contacts alone, they have a greater need to be armed from revenge seeking feral man.

Notice, I did not say thy are more important, or more 'equal' than others, or even that they are better than the average joe citizen...just that their need is greater due to the requirements of their duties. Everyone has a chance that dangerous people could be looking for them. Cops are simply more visible targets.

Ease back on the retros a bit.

What I disagree with is the 'get-even-with-them-ism' that's been demonstrated in this thread. The amount of venom spewed towards LEO's here is bordering on the pathological.

I mean really...if you happen to be walking down a dark street unarmed, and a band of thugs jumps out at you and commences to stab the life out of you, are you going to take comfort that 'those damn retired cops' are equally unarmed?

I would hope that everyone who is able and willing to take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm would be so armed...retired cops, off-duty cops, teachers, electricians, butchers, flower shop owners, etc., etc., etc.

Personally, I don't belive that carrying a firearm is only a personal choice. I believe it drifts into the civic responsibility realm.
 
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.
Click to expand...

My brother!

That is my gripe as well. I too chafe at the relative silence of the law enforcement community. There are more of us Pro RKBA cops and former cops than you realize. I would offer this only defense. Often, administrators opine about 'civilian police forces' and 'community oriented policing' when it's time to get the public to sign on for this-or-that special project. However, these same administrators clamp down on the line staff claiming that the department is a 'para-military organization' when the line staff supports an opinion that may not be what the Chief or Sheriff and his immediate staff believe. There are times when it isn't a case of 'won't say', it's a case of 'can't say.'

Believe me. I have the 'documented verbal counseling' letter right here in my file cabinet for writing a pro-firearm letter to one of our local newspapers. It happens.

And, no...it is not realistic to flippantly cast off the suggestion that cops simply 'quit their jobs in protest.' That's retarded.
 
Believe me. I have the 'documented verbal counseling' letter right here in my file cabinet for writing a pro-firearm letter to one of our local newspapers. It happens.
Click to expand...

Not suggesting you quit your job, but do you really want to work for a dept. that gives you a verbal counseling for writing a letter to the local rag. Last time I checked, that was ok under the 1st Amendment.
 
Yeah, truly. It may be one thing to put your family out on the street by quitting in protest, but how can you ever feel good about working under such a yoke?

When you took your oath, mrex21, did you swear to foresake your freedom of speech and association?


-azurefly
 
Mrex21 said it for me regarding the reply to why

I said this thread is in contempt of LEO's. Well done.

If you are not really going to accept the fact that LEO. Is a special Job and needs to be handled by people that are subjected to special needs regarding CCW In America. Then the fact is how can one understand each other?

I saw a post regarding how they are just another civilian? Not true, they are civilians but they have a sworn duty that they have taken. It is different then running the local Meat market or Shell gas station.
Granted both of the jobs mentioned the people might want to have the right to carry a gun during the morning watch or ??? But in their Job it is not something they will be needing (a weapon) on a daily or weekly or monthly occasion.

If the Police Officer was able to be put into a protection program and move to another state and never need to carry, I am sure they would be glad to accept that as an alternative. But to deny them the right to have a ccw in the area they are familiar with is crazy and wrong.

There are many states where if you are a Police Officer from another state you can not carry. But since the Federal Law has come in because of terrorisim, it has changed that.

I believe Chicago is going about it in such a way as to make a point. They are making it and it will be heard across the country.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility and some Officers when they retire, they retire their gun also. But if they are put into a situation where they might need it and someone knows that they are a retired Officer, just think of the position they will be put in then.
The one making the biggest stink will be the very people who don't want them to have it.

It has almost become mandatory for retired Officers to have to carry since the Federal Law. I am sure some don't like it one bit.

Harley
 
The argument that retired police officers have scores of violent felons out looking for them to extract revenge doesn't really hold water. Many, many people come in contact with the violent and even psychotic dregs of our society, yet are denied the right to carry a gun concealed in Chicago. These people include social workers, nurses, and many others. Consider the single mother who struggles to keep her child out of a gang. Should she be denied handgun ownership? What about the old man at the fruit market who is tired of gang members taking his merchandise right in front of him, and who finally objects to this. Should he be denied gun ownership? All of these people meet the same exact criteria you are using to justify retired police officer special privileges. To say that retired police officers are the only people who come into contact with violent people is ridiculous.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility and some Officers when they retire, they retire their gun also. But if they are put into a situation where they might need it and someone knows that they are a retired Officer, just think of the position they will be put in then.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, when Chicago police officers retire, they should simply retire to Florida.
 
It's not just CCW, or special privileges for retired cops. Many police organizations do not want US citizens to have anything at all to protect themselves.
"Our mission is to stop violent felons," said Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch. "There is no reason for anyone else to have that ability."

THIS is bigotry. Wanting equal rights for everyone, and special privileges abolished is NOT bigotry. Why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Good. This is perfect. This is what I was talking about in another post. You are taking one statement, from one PBA, from one liberal state...and condemning ALL LEO's as subscribing to that mindset. That's asinine.

That statement sticks in my craw as well. Most certainly I do not subscribe to it, nor did any of the folks I worked with. I know. I talked to them.

The argument that retired police officers have scores of violent felons out looking for them to extract revenge doesn't really hold water. Many, many people come in contact with the violent and even psychotic dregs of our society, yet are denied the right to carry a gun concealed in Chicago. These people include social workers, nurses, and many others. Consider the single mother who struggles to keep her child out of a gang. Should she be denied handgun ownership? What about the old man at the fruit market who is tired of gang members taking his merchandise right in front of him, and who finally objects to this. Should he be denied gun ownership? All of these people meet the same exact criteria you are using to justify retired police officer special privileges. To say that retired police officers are the only people who come into contact with violent people is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read my posts, or simply gloss over them and see what you wanted to see? None of the examples you provided should be denied the ability to defend themselves. And, no...they don't meet the same criteria.

I find it very interesting that you consider a retired peace officer carrying a firearm to be a 'special privilage', but for lay citizens, you consider it a 'right'. Why are you such a proponent for disarmament for retired peace officers?

What happened to you to cause you to hate retired peace officers so much?

Perhaps, when Chicago police officers retire, they should simply retire to Florida.
Click to expand...

Could you be more of an elitist?
 
Not suggesting you quit your job, but do you really want to work for a dept. that gives you a verbal counseling for writing a letter to the local rag. Last time I checked, that was ok under the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. But, we all have to put up with stuff we don't like at our jobs.
 
Quote:
Simple fact of the matter is, they are different because they do come in contact with the filth of society every day as part of the normal course of their duties. This puts them at a greater risk.

Mrex21:
Once retired, they are no different from folks who live in low income, high crime areas, relative to coming in contact with the "filth of society".

The idea is, the law abiding citizen, and the retired cop, who is now just a law abiding citizen, are supposed to be equal under our system of government.

Are you saying a guy who goes to work every day, but only earns less than $ 18K per year and has to live in a low income high crime area, has less constitutional right to protect himself and his family, than a retired cop? After all, he probably runs into more criminals on his way to the grocery store every day, than a retired cop will see in a year.
 
Good. This is perfect. This is what I was talking about in another post. You are taking one statement, from one PBA, from one liberal state...and condemning ALL LEO's as subscribing to that mindset. That's asinine.
That statement sticks in my craw as well. Most certainly I do not subscribe to it, nor did any of the folks I worked with. I know. I talked to them.
Click to expand...
You choose your representatives. I do not see any uniformed officers, nor retired officers organizing to speak out against this kind of opression, or attempting to obtain new representation. Therefore I have to assume if you do not agree, you at least condone what is being said. These are your representatives, your brothers in blue. The same brothers in blue who were in New Orleans in Patricia Konie's apartment, and driving at high speed through Virginia.

Call me assinine. Call me a bigot. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see. Your blindness is tedious.
 
Once retired, they are no different from folks who live in low income, high crime areas, relative to coming in contact with the "filth of society".

The idea is, the law abiding citizen, and the retired cop, who is now just a law abiding citizen, are supposed to be equal under our system of government.

Are you saying a guy who goes to work every day, but only earns less than $ 18K per year, has less constitutional rights that a retired cop? After all, he runs into more criminals on his way to the store that a retired cop probably sees in a year.
Click to expand...

Nope, but nice attempt to put words in my mouth.

Law of averages. Your example is flawed. Does the "guy who goes to work every day, but only earns less than $18K per year" actively apprehend criminals and take them to jail, or investigate crimes, on his way to the store...or does he just see them in an alley across the street?

The retired peace officer isn't just a 'law abiding citizen'. He's a law abiding citizen with a history of contacts with criminals bent on ill intent. One more time for the cheap seats. There are no gentleman's rules in revenge. The threat to retired officers is real, and greater than that of the lay-citizen just by the very nature of his/her job. They're not more important than the lay-citizen...they just come into contact with evil more.
 
You choose your representatives. I do not see any uniformed officers, nor retired officers organizing to speak out against this kind of opression, or attempting to obtain new representation. Therefore I have to assume if you do not agree, you at least condone what is being said. These are your representatives, your brothers in blue. The same brothers in blue who were in New Orleans in Patricia Konie's apartment, and driving at high speed through Virginia.

Call me assinine. Call me a bigot. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see. Your blindness is tedious.
Click to expand...

I'm blind?:confused:

Your leaps in logic and blanket assumptions are also tedious.

*Removed Personal Attack.
Al.
 
I assume you have some hard data of violent felons extracting revenge on retired officers of the law, or is that just speculation and hollywood myth?

Let's see some sources, and/or some data to back up the fundamental premise of your argument MRex.
 
Perhaps the PBA is like CAIR (council on american islamic relations). CAIR is silent each time a terrorist strike occurs, and the PBA is silent each time someone in Chicago is murdered by a thug who knows he can pick his victims at will.

CAIR has no converse political body that is Muslim yet believes in the american ideal.

The PBA has no converse political body that believes that Americans have all the rights in the Bill of Rights.

If you are not really going to accept the fact that LEO. Is a special Job and needs to be handled by people that are subjected to special needs regarding CCW In America. Then the fact is how can one understand each other?
Click to expand...

Another elitist cop.

Why don't you guys start your own political alliance? Come up with a snappy acronym and get a web page going, start soliciting via the FOP or PBA or something. Put your money where your mouth is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top