Chicago Won't Let Retired Cops Carry Concealed Guns
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
Harley,
I understand what you are saying when you say that LEO's, retired or active, may have a price tag on their heads.
Now, if they are retired they should have to go through the same system that we do in order to carry in states/counties/cities that heavily restrict it.
A retired LEO that may, or may not, have a price on their heads are not better than a battered women (or man) who is being threatened also.
The "civilian" can only get an RO, so therefore that is all the retired LEO should be able to receive.
What makes one groups protection more needed than another groups?
I am not filled with "glee" about what has happened, I am just happy that these folks now understand what happens to us, the "civilian". Maybe now the retired LEO's will get off their high horses and fight WITH the "civilians" (of which they are now) to get CCW passed in Chicago. They have been put into the same boat as us and can't walk around saying that they got theirs, screw everyone else.
And, this is good because active duty LEO's, knowing that they will retire someday, will also get into the CCW fight for everyone.
You had mentioned that it was a better thing before, due to now the retired LEO's would be fighting for the rest of us to have national CCW (or just CCW in states that severely restrict it). Yet it's been what... 2 years or so that this bill was passed and signed into law.
Yet I've yet to see any retired LEO's getting together and pushing for CCW (national or state) for everyone that is legal to do so. How was this a stepping-stone for us? Your average "joe"?
It was mostly a "I've got mine, I don't care about yours" attitude. This is unacceptable. How is it that public employees get more Rights then those they work for? (and if you get into the "we're not public servants, then what are you? Who do you serve? The state, the city, the county? What is it that you're supposed to protect and serve? This may open up the eyes of non-LEO's if you chose to answer (any LEO chooses to answer).
I have nothing against a retired LEO that is being targeted by someone or group that they have arrested and put behind bars to get a CCW. They should go through the same steps and procedures that we, the mere "civilian", has to take in order to do so. If they don't wish to do so then maybe they should vote and lobby for CCW, Shall Issue, laws for that state/county/city.
If I'm a bigot for thinking that everyone should have the same rules/laws/Rights then so be it. If you chose a career that is dangerous (as is the military as well as a pizza delivery person) then that was your choice. No one forced you to do so, you were told of the dangers, and you felt the need to continue. Good for you, my hat is off to you and your service to the community. Yet don't think that just because of your job choice that you are better, more special, and deserve more than those that didn't make that career choice. Everyone's life is worth the same, none is worth more than another. Once you start down that path then you become just as bad as the elitist, the facist, and the tyrant. This is the point where you start to view others as beneath you and aren't warrented of the same protections that you wish for yourself.
Those are the people that I have no respect for and will never come to their aid if needed. And that is the perception that many non-LEO's are getting, be it right or wrong, it doesn't matter, only the perception matters.
I hope that you and other LEO's will try to understand where I, as well as others, are trying to say. We're trying to show you why the majority of the people think the way they do. Open up a line of conversation to maybe work out this widening gap that has been created.
I will say that MRex has done more harm for the LEO cause than anyone else (well, with one exception) on the board. The arrogance as well as the depisement of "civilians" comes through all too clear and members, non-LEO, are picking up on it. It has widened the gap even more and I firmly believe that this is his intent.
Call it bashing him if you will, I'm just stating observations as I've read this thread as well as others.
So, I guess it's really a moot point now. One side of the fence will continue to disagree with the other, and the same goes for the other side. It's a shame through, nothing good is going to come from these threads especially since neither side is willing to actually listen to one another.
*sigh*
Wayne
I understand what you are saying when you say that LEO's, retired or active, may have a price tag on their heads.
Now, if they are retired they should have to go through the same system that we do in order to carry in states/counties/cities that heavily restrict it.
A retired LEO that may, or may not, have a price on their heads are not better than a battered women (or man) who is being threatened also.
The "civilian" can only get an RO, so therefore that is all the retired LEO should be able to receive.
What makes one groups protection more needed than another groups?
I am not filled with "glee" about what has happened, I am just happy that these folks now understand what happens to us, the "civilian". Maybe now the retired LEO's will get off their high horses and fight WITH the "civilians" (of which they are now) to get CCW passed in Chicago. They have been put into the same boat as us and can't walk around saying that they got theirs, screw everyone else.
And, this is good because active duty LEO's, knowing that they will retire someday, will also get into the CCW fight for everyone.
You had mentioned that it was a better thing before, due to now the retired LEO's would be fighting for the rest of us to have national CCW (or just CCW in states that severely restrict it). Yet it's been what... 2 years or so that this bill was passed and signed into law.
Yet I've yet to see any retired LEO's getting together and pushing for CCW (national or state) for everyone that is legal to do so. How was this a stepping-stone for us? Your average "joe"?
It was mostly a "I've got mine, I don't care about yours" attitude. This is unacceptable. How is it that public employees get more Rights then those they work for? (and if you get into the "we're not public servants, then what are you? Who do you serve? The state, the city, the county? What is it that you're supposed to protect and serve? This may open up the eyes of non-LEO's if you chose to answer (any LEO chooses to answer).
I have nothing against a retired LEO that is being targeted by someone or group that they have arrested and put behind bars to get a CCW. They should go through the same steps and procedures that we, the mere "civilian", has to take in order to do so. If they don't wish to do so then maybe they should vote and lobby for CCW, Shall Issue, laws for that state/county/city.
If I'm a bigot for thinking that everyone should have the same rules/laws/Rights then so be it. If you chose a career that is dangerous (as is the military as well as a pizza delivery person) then that was your choice. No one forced you to do so, you were told of the dangers, and you felt the need to continue. Good for you, my hat is off to you and your service to the community. Yet don't think that just because of your job choice that you are better, more special, and deserve more than those that didn't make that career choice. Everyone's life is worth the same, none is worth more than another. Once you start down that path then you become just as bad as the elitist, the facist, and the tyrant. This is the point where you start to view others as beneath you and aren't warrented of the same protections that you wish for yourself.
Those are the people that I have no respect for and will never come to their aid if needed. And that is the perception that many non-LEO's are getting, be it right or wrong, it doesn't matter, only the perception matters.
I hope that you and other LEO's will try to understand where I, as well as others, are trying to say. We're trying to show you why the majority of the people think the way they do. Open up a line of conversation to maybe work out this widening gap that has been created.
I will say that MRex has done more harm for the LEO cause than anyone else (well, with one exception) on the board. The arrogance as well as the depisement of "civilians" comes through all too clear and members, non-LEO, are picking up on it. It has widened the gap even more and I firmly believe that this is his intent.
Call it bashing him if you will, I'm just stating observations as I've read this thread as well as others.
So, I guess it's really a moot point now. One side of the fence will continue to disagree with the other, and the same goes for the other side. It's a shame through, nothing good is going to come from these threads especially since neither side is willing to actually listen to one another.
*sigh*
Wayne
You get from my posts whatever you read into them. Perhaps you are merely seeing a reflection of your own prejudice, and you have found it distasteful, but aren't quite ready to work through it.
Hmm...
I wasn't aware that wanting all citizens to have unrestricted CCW ability was considered arrogant. Thanks for the heads-up.
Oh...it's bashing alright. Don't you worry your pretty little head.
Democratic Gun Control
by Louis Beam
Since disarming the citizens of this country is the objective of the federal government, and since the federal government proclaims this to be a democratic country based upon equality, then any gun control measures adopted by the government should be democratically applied.
If law abiding citizens are to have their guns taken from them then let the law abiding police agencies of the state be disarmed also. (Those in law enforcement who are crooked can keep their guns just as the drug pushers and criminal elements in the civilian population at large will keep theirs.) Democracy based on equality requires that, so far as possible all are to be democratically equal. Why should the police, FBI, and federal marshals remain armed while citizens are not? Let us look at this issue in an intelligent, reasonable manner and examine the arguments.
It will be said of those in favor of non-democratic gun control that the police come into contact with dangerous criminal elements and need guns to defend themselves as well as to enforce the laws. This is, of course, quite true, but is it not equally true for the citizens of this country? Are they not the chief victims of crime? Do they not need to protect themselves? In most cases, the policeman or FBI agent is much more able to defend himself as a result of training, physical conditioning, and experience than, say, a woman at a shopping mall who is dragged into an attacker's van and raped while her child is beaten unconscious by the assailant. Why, in a equal democratic society, would laws be passed that would provide a pistol for the police officer and not for the woman? Does not the woman as a citizen enjoy the same right to self defense as a police officer? Do not citizens have the same right to defend themselves as FBI agents?
For every law enforcement officer that comes into contact with a criminal there are 7,653 citizens that are victimized by criminals. A citizen is 800 times more likely to be the victim of crime than a law enforcement officer, yet those who control the Federal government in Washington wish to make it illegal for any citizens to defend himself! The best place to stop crime is at the time of it's occurrence; in other words, were the 7,653 citizens armed they could in most cases prevent the crime at the point of it's occurrence. The police almost always arrive at the scene of a crime after the occurrence of the crime. Logically speaking, if the rules governing gun ownership are to be un-democratically applied, it makes far more sense to disarm the police than the citizens. The police can of course, once the one week waiting period is over, obtain a firearm just like citizens. Their arms should, however, be kept under lock and key at the police station. Then, just like citizens, if they get into trouble they can call 911 for armed help to come save them.
One week waiting periods before the purchase of a firearm should be democratically applied. If it makes sense for a citizen to be required to wait a week in order to buy a firearm for protection, then it makes equally good sense for the police and FBI to do the same. Innocent people are killed every year by both agencies. If enforcement agencies had to wait a week before they could get a pistol, countless lives would be saved. A true example of this type of situation occurred recently in Houston, Texas where two armed robbers held up a large super market. The police advised of a hold up in progress placed officers at all exits. As the holdup progressed and shoppers became aware of the stickup, several tried to flee the robbers. The first three shoppers out the door were shot by a female police officer, two died. How does a one week waiting period sound for this police officer? Now, it can be argued that most officers never shoot an innocent person with their side arms. Quite true. The same is true for most citizens who own guns.
If our cites are so safe that citizens do not need guns, then the President's secret service guards should be disarmed. Is the president any more deserving of his life than the citizens who elected him? Democracy, where art thou?
It seems clear that government elitists don't trust citizens who own guns. Can citizens trust a government who owns all the guns?
Perhaps the federal government has something planned for the citizens of America that requires them to be disarmed? Bought any stock in the "New World Order" yet? It's originators, socialist elitists in Washington D.C., specify that worldwide disarmament must be instituted for the NWO to begin. You did not really think that this just meant foreign armies did you? Of course the enforcers of the NWO are to be allowed to keep their guns. How else can they see that you, a simple citizen, go along with their program?
One has to ask himself what kind of country this would be if only criminals and government agents have arms. Perhaps the simple peasants who were in Tienanmen Square, or the Croatian and Slovakian citizens seen throwing rocks at tanks can best answer this question. Gun control works. Ask any government agent from Red Square to the steps of the White House.
For those who can think, the words "gun control" or "New World Order" instinctively cause us to throw a thirty round clip into our weapon, for we are aware that the biggest criminals are the ones who live in Washington D.C.
http://www.louisbeam.com/guncont.htm
by Louis Beam
Since disarming the citizens of this country is the objective of the federal government, and since the federal government proclaims this to be a democratic country based upon equality, then any gun control measures adopted by the government should be democratically applied.
If law abiding citizens are to have their guns taken from them then let the law abiding police agencies of the state be disarmed also. (Those in law enforcement who are crooked can keep their guns just as the drug pushers and criminal elements in the civilian population at large will keep theirs.) Democracy based on equality requires that, so far as possible all are to be democratically equal. Why should the police, FBI, and federal marshals remain armed while citizens are not? Let us look at this issue in an intelligent, reasonable manner and examine the arguments.
It will be said of those in favor of non-democratic gun control that the police come into contact with dangerous criminal elements and need guns to defend themselves as well as to enforce the laws. This is, of course, quite true, but is it not equally true for the citizens of this country? Are they not the chief victims of crime? Do they not need to protect themselves? In most cases, the policeman or FBI agent is much more able to defend himself as a result of training, physical conditioning, and experience than, say, a woman at a shopping mall who is dragged into an attacker's van and raped while her child is beaten unconscious by the assailant. Why, in a equal democratic society, would laws be passed that would provide a pistol for the police officer and not for the woman? Does not the woman as a citizen enjoy the same right to self defense as a police officer? Do not citizens have the same right to defend themselves as FBI agents?
For every law enforcement officer that comes into contact with a criminal there are 7,653 citizens that are victimized by criminals. A citizen is 800 times more likely to be the victim of crime than a law enforcement officer, yet those who control the Federal government in Washington wish to make it illegal for any citizens to defend himself! The best place to stop crime is at the time of it's occurrence; in other words, were the 7,653 citizens armed they could in most cases prevent the crime at the point of it's occurrence. The police almost always arrive at the scene of a crime after the occurrence of the crime. Logically speaking, if the rules governing gun ownership are to be un-democratically applied, it makes far more sense to disarm the police than the citizens. The police can of course, once the one week waiting period is over, obtain a firearm just like citizens. Their arms should, however, be kept under lock and key at the police station. Then, just like citizens, if they get into trouble they can call 911 for armed help to come save them.
One week waiting periods before the purchase of a firearm should be democratically applied. If it makes sense for a citizen to be required to wait a week in order to buy a firearm for protection, then it makes equally good sense for the police and FBI to do the same. Innocent people are killed every year by both agencies. If enforcement agencies had to wait a week before they could get a pistol, countless lives would be saved. A true example of this type of situation occurred recently in Houston, Texas where two armed robbers held up a large super market. The police advised of a hold up in progress placed officers at all exits. As the holdup progressed and shoppers became aware of the stickup, several tried to flee the robbers. The first three shoppers out the door were shot by a female police officer, two died. How does a one week waiting period sound for this police officer? Now, it can be argued that most officers never shoot an innocent person with their side arms. Quite true. The same is true for most citizens who own guns.
If our cites are so safe that citizens do not need guns, then the President's secret service guards should be disarmed. Is the president any more deserving of his life than the citizens who elected him? Democracy, where art thou?
It seems clear that government elitists don't trust citizens who own guns. Can citizens trust a government who owns all the guns?
Perhaps the federal government has something planned for the citizens of America that requires them to be disarmed? Bought any stock in the "New World Order" yet? It's originators, socialist elitists in Washington D.C., specify that worldwide disarmament must be instituted for the NWO to begin. You did not really think that this just meant foreign armies did you? Of course the enforcers of the NWO are to be allowed to keep their guns. How else can they see that you, a simple citizen, go along with their program?
One has to ask himself what kind of country this would be if only criminals and government agents have arms. Perhaps the simple peasants who were in Tienanmen Square, or the Croatian and Slovakian citizens seen throwing rocks at tanks can best answer this question. Gun control works. Ask any government agent from Red Square to the steps of the White House.
For those who can think, the words "gun control" or "New World Order" instinctively cause us to throw a thirty round clip into our weapon, for we are aware that the biggest criminals are the ones who live in Washington D.C.
http://www.louisbeam.com/guncont.htm
Harley Quinn
Moderator
I have been retired for a long time
I feel the particular idea of taking away the right in the area, they lived and served is not good. But in other States and Countries, I feel the law is the law and if you can not carry and you want to, going down and filling out the paper work is correct.
I flew out of L. A. To Sacramento one time. I worked LAPD, had a gun on me active. Went to go home and had a gun on me and Sacramento Airport had a fit. I got permission from the Captain of the Airplane and it was ok. But if I had not gotten his permission, I probably would not have been able to carry... I was very surprised. Never did that again.
But I don't think that the attitude of: They are civillians now and must feel the same as us is appropriate. If the person wants to carry so much and can't where they are from, I guess they will move if it means so much to them.
I think many LEO don't think proper in respects to civilian carry, I really hate to see the civilian/us mentality.
I think it comes from to many, hey: I got this ticket and blah blah,routine...
LEO's didn't make the laws they have to enforce them. I have known some LEO who did not enforce a law or write it in the log and got days off.
What a lot of person's don't realize is when an LEO stops another and does not write him up, as a general rule it is written on the daily log of the officer while he is working. It is reviewed and if the supervisor thinks it should be done usually there is enough information to contact the LEO own supervisor and he/she gets a talking to or days off or??? But it is held in house.
I went to court 2 years after an incident with a LEO and all I did was write it in my log and the DA prosecuted and I was told by Supervisor to attend.
I had to. Agreed it is unusual but it does happen.
LEO's have attitudes just like others, and they generally end up paying for them, like others.
Harley
I feel the particular idea of taking away the right in the area, they lived and served is not good. But in other States and Countries, I feel the law is the law and if you can not carry and you want to, going down and filling out the paper work is correct.
I flew out of L. A. To Sacramento one time. I worked LAPD, had a gun on me active. Went to go home and had a gun on me and Sacramento Airport had a fit. I got permission from the Captain of the Airplane and it was ok. But if I had not gotten his permission, I probably would not have been able to carry... I was very surprised. Never did that again.
But I don't think that the attitude of: They are civillians now and must feel the same as us is appropriate. If the person wants to carry so much and can't where they are from, I guess they will move if it means so much to them.
I think many LEO don't think proper in respects to civilian carry, I really hate to see the civilian/us mentality.
I think it comes from to many, hey: I got this ticket and blah blah,routine...
LEO's didn't make the laws they have to enforce them. I have known some LEO who did not enforce a law or write it in the log and got days off.
What a lot of person's don't realize is when an LEO stops another and does not write him up, as a general rule it is written on the daily log of the officer while he is working. It is reviewed and if the supervisor thinks it should be done usually there is enough information to contact the LEO own supervisor and he/she gets a talking to or days off or??? But it is held in house.
I went to court 2 years after an incident with a LEO and all I did was write it in my log and the DA prosecuted and I was told by Supervisor to attend.
I had to. Agreed it is unusual but it does happen.
LEO's have attitudes just like others, and they generally end up paying for them, like others.
Harley
I agree with this statement and I don't wish it to be so. As I cannot (well, willnot) see what MRex wrote I can't comment on that. Yet with you I agree with the above.
As for the tickets and such, that really isn't the issue but others wish to make it so. We've all gotten tickets or have had contact with LEO's in one way or the other. A ticket and a fine isn't what is creating the distrust or the "hate" (in some cases) when it comes to LEO and "Civilian"... it's what we've seen, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the old lady in N.O., etc.. and most importantly it's how we feel as we try to live our lives in the best and most honest way that we can. When a cop pulls you over you have this feeling that really shouldn't be felt, it's fear. Not because you've done anything wrong except for a minor traffic violation or equipment violation but because we, the mere citizen, doesn't know what may happen on the stop. The LEO's state the same thing, and no one wins and usually the innocent is the one killed.
When I was at Prince Sultan I went on mail runs from Prince Sultan to Riyad. We had to travel many hundreds of miles between the two to get the mail to the contractor compound there. I didn't feel in danger from the people (even when we got lost) or the LEO's there, even though they did seem abet tense of us.
Yet I will tell you the truth, I am more fearful in my own country then I was there.
As a side note, was anyone here ever there? If so, PM me so we can share. Interesting time. Also, anyone here that was in Kuwait at the Communications Center? Again, interesting tour of duty.
Wayne
Harley Quinn
Moderator
USP45usp
I understand the feeling. I am far removed from Police work now and go to a few reunions every couple of years. I saw a CHP behind me a couple of cars back and the first thing I thought was, I wonder where he came form. Then he lit his lights and pulled into my lane (#1) I pulled over and he went by. I was glad.
I always told my children, pull over put you hands where they can be seen and be repectful.
My oldest son when he was 17 got pulled over and was mouthy, then he was sorry, he told them who I was and they called me and I went down to the station and said what happened?
Bad attitude one officer said. I said whats next? He can go home with you he has been talked to by the SGT. I talked to the WC and that was it.
Next time he was arrested an spent time in jail. He never learned. Was a problem until he died at 35. Sad, to bad, life sucks. I have hundreds of stories, you don't want to hear them. This one was very close.
Harley
I understand the feeling. I am far removed from Police work now and go to a few reunions every couple of years. I saw a CHP behind me a couple of cars back and the first thing I thought was, I wonder where he came form. Then he lit his lights and pulled into my lane (#1) I pulled over and he went by. I was glad.
I always told my children, pull over put you hands where they can be seen and be repectful.
My oldest son when he was 17 got pulled over and was mouthy, then he was sorry, he told them who I was and they called me and I went down to the station and said what happened?
Bad attitude one officer said. I said whats next? He can go home with you he has been talked to by the SGT. I talked to the WC and that was it.
Next time he was arrested an spent time in jail. He never learned. Was a problem until he died at 35. Sad, to bad, life sucks. I have hundreds of stories, you don't want to hear them. This one was very close.
Harley
XavierBreath
New member
Wayne,
Thanks for saying very eloquently what I feel in post #102.
I have already been labeled an ass and a bigot by Mr. MRex, so I really don't give a flying flip about his opinions any more. I have not placed him on ignore because his posts are humorous, kind of like a snake that has it's tail run over on the hot pavement and is flopping around violently.
Harley,
My distrust for law enforcement did not come about from tickets, jail time, or any other contact with them. In fact, each time I have come in contact personally with officers of the law they behaved professionally. My distrust comes as a result of the weapons confiscations in New Orleans, the civilians gunned down on the Danziger bridge in New Orleans, and the beating of Robert Davis and attempted suppression of the media in the streets of New Orleans. These acts were not done just by New Orleans police, but by police from around our nation.
Until the recent events and abuses in New Orleans, I was a firm supporter of the police. When I read LEOs posts on this many other forums justifying these abuses and murders I was sickened and will never see officers of the law in the same way again. I support the many fine officers who behave professionally, but I will no longer look away when an officer abuses his power. I will no longer automatically give them the benefit of the doubt. I understand that most will never give a flip about my opinion, but I cannot change the way I feel. The fact is, I wish I could feel differently. After what occured in my own state, in New Orleans, I never will.
Thanks for saying very eloquently what I feel in post #102.
I have already been labeled an ass and a bigot by Mr. MRex, so I really don't give a flying flip about his opinions any more. I have not placed him on ignore because his posts are humorous, kind of like a snake that has it's tail run over on the hot pavement and is flopping around violently.
Harley,
My distrust for law enforcement did not come about from tickets, jail time, or any other contact with them. In fact, each time I have come in contact personally with officers of the law they behaved professionally. My distrust comes as a result of the weapons confiscations in New Orleans, the civilians gunned down on the Danziger bridge in New Orleans, and the beating of Robert Davis and attempted suppression of the media in the streets of New Orleans. These acts were not done just by New Orleans police, but by police from around our nation.
Until the recent events and abuses in New Orleans, I was a firm supporter of the police. When I read LEOs posts on this many other forums justifying these abuses and murders I was sickened and will never see officers of the law in the same way again. I support the many fine officers who behave professionally, but I will no longer look away when an officer abuses his power. I will no longer automatically give them the benefit of the doubt. I understand that most will never give a flip about my opinion, but I cannot change the way I feel. The fact is, I wish I could feel differently. After what occured in my own state, in New Orleans, I never will.
Folks, I missed this thread, but I did get reamed on the mirror image on THR, so it's all good. 
As far as I'm concerned, the point is that there is a chance here to restore the right to carry a firearm for self-defense to about 4000 people in Chicago. There is not a chance, at the moment, to do it for the other 8 million or so. So the question is, should we be thinking of putting pressure on to get that right back for those 4,000, or should we be enjoying their predicament because at least then everyone will be equally oppressed?
If you put aside your desire to see Chicago police officers get the shaft and just evaluate this objectively, it's hard to see how having 4,000 people practicing CCW in Chicago is a bad thing. These people and their families and friends are going to be learning about CCW. They are a start towards the one thing Illinois really lacks in the CCW fight--a populace that understands what CCW is, knows what its purpose is, and understands that "normal" people practice it.
Anyway, for those of you presenting this as a choice between "arming only the special class of LEO's" and "arming all the people as the Constitution demands," I must disagree. I was not aware that there was a serious proposal on the table to allow general citizen CCW in Illinois or Chicago. The comparison might as well be "Would you rather have this measly $100 in my hand, or this chicken? The chicken is magical, and it lays eggs made of solid gold!"
No, $100 isn't a fortune, and retired LEO CCW isn't much for the rest of us, either. But the golden eggs are a little too good to be true. So is the notion that we should just wave the Constitution in Daley's face and he'll melt like the Wicked Witch.
Again, if Daley didn't think this was a toehold for CCW he would not be fighting it this hard.
As far as I'm concerned, the point is that there is a chance here to restore the right to carry a firearm for self-defense to about 4000 people in Chicago. There is not a chance, at the moment, to do it for the other 8 million or so. So the question is, should we be thinking of putting pressure on to get that right back for those 4,000, or should we be enjoying their predicament because at least then everyone will be equally oppressed?
If you put aside your desire to see Chicago police officers get the shaft and just evaluate this objectively, it's hard to see how having 4,000 people practicing CCW in Chicago is a bad thing. These people and their families and friends are going to be learning about CCW. They are a start towards the one thing Illinois really lacks in the CCW fight--a populace that understands what CCW is, knows what its purpose is, and understands that "normal" people practice it.
Anyway, for those of you presenting this as a choice between "arming only the special class of LEO's" and "arming all the people as the Constitution demands," I must disagree. I was not aware that there was a serious proposal on the table to allow general citizen CCW in Illinois or Chicago. The comparison might as well be "Would you rather have this measly $100 in my hand, or this chicken? The chicken is magical, and it lays eggs made of solid gold!"
No, $100 isn't a fortune, and retired LEO CCW isn't much for the rest of us, either. But the golden eggs are a little too good to be true. So is the notion that we should just wave the Constitution in Daley's face and he'll melt like the Wicked Witch.
Again, if Daley didn't think this was a toehold for CCW he would not be fighting it this hard.
I admit I haven't read this entire thread yet . . . . but I will. I don't know whether anyone was called an ass, a bigot or worse, but that stops now. This is The Firing Line. The original home of the High Road. We don't use personal attacks here.
It would be particularly dumb to engage in personal attacks when debating people who are on your side.
It would be particularly dumb to engage in personal attacks when debating people who are on your side.
Gary Conner
New member
Xavierbreath:
Your last post pretty much says it all as to why folks who were previously 100 percent pro-LEO, have become a little concerned about LEO's trying to justify the unconstitutional actions of the various police agency officers against citizens in New Orleans, when they stripped them of their 2nd amendment rights after Katrina.
There simply is no justification whatsoever that could be proferred by any lucid individual to claim it was legal, moral, or ethical, to pull an old lady out of her home after forcing her to the floor, stripping her of her only defense against looters, and then go dragging her, kicking and yelling through the very contaminated water she had not previously been exposed to in order to "evacuate" her, so she would not be exposed to "contaminated" water.
And that is just one news story, the Anti-gun news media happened to let us see. I don't know to this day, if she has ever received her property back, even after the NRA won the lawsuit.
As far as I am aware, there is not duty for a civil law enforcement officer, to follow an unlawful order. And there was a wholesale confiscation of fireamrs from people who were supposed to be "secure within their houses".
I saw no stories to indicate any of those officers from the various agencies refused to follow that order, nor any interviews where any LEO's thought it was a concern. I imagine there were some officers that knew it was not legal. I just never saw anyone bring it up on the news. I realize that is something the news media is responsible for. However, I am betting that if a law enforcement agency, or police organization wanted to issue a statement about the goings on during Katrina, it would be a good bet that it would have been aired.
So I think it would be a good idea, if LEO's want to get the approval opinion back up to 100 percent pro-LEO again with more of John Q. Public, they get their unions, organizations, Chiefs, and elected Sherriffs to come out vocally in support of organizations like the NRA, State Rifle Associations, Jews For The Preservation of Firearm Ownership, etc., and to condemn the actions of the LEO's who broke the law in New Orleans by following obviously unlawful orders, and confiscating guns from homeowners.
Additionally, they could address the obviously illegal "show of force", "show me your identification" type of citizen stops (upheldby the Supreme Court as illegal in Brown vs. Texas) that Miami's police department recently decided to spring on citizens walking down the street.
I sincerely hope this post is taken as it is intended, which is a positive suggestion, to try and get more support for both LEO's and for returning our country back to being the representative republic it was intended to be.
Your last post pretty much says it all as to why folks who were previously 100 percent pro-LEO, have become a little concerned about LEO's trying to justify the unconstitutional actions of the various police agency officers against citizens in New Orleans, when they stripped them of their 2nd amendment rights after Katrina.
There simply is no justification whatsoever that could be proferred by any lucid individual to claim it was legal, moral, or ethical, to pull an old lady out of her home after forcing her to the floor, stripping her of her only defense against looters, and then go dragging her, kicking and yelling through the very contaminated water she had not previously been exposed to in order to "evacuate" her, so she would not be exposed to "contaminated" water.
And that is just one news story, the Anti-gun news media happened to let us see. I don't know to this day, if she has ever received her property back, even after the NRA won the lawsuit.
As far as I am aware, there is not duty for a civil law enforcement officer, to follow an unlawful order. And there was a wholesale confiscation of fireamrs from people who were supposed to be "secure within their houses".
I saw no stories to indicate any of those officers from the various agencies refused to follow that order, nor any interviews where any LEO's thought it was a concern. I imagine there were some officers that knew it was not legal. I just never saw anyone bring it up on the news. I realize that is something the news media is responsible for. However, I am betting that if a law enforcement agency, or police organization wanted to issue a statement about the goings on during Katrina, it would be a good bet that it would have been aired.
So I think it would be a good idea, if LEO's want to get the approval opinion back up to 100 percent pro-LEO again with more of John Q. Public, they get their unions, organizations, Chiefs, and elected Sherriffs to come out vocally in support of organizations like the NRA, State Rifle Associations, Jews For The Preservation of Firearm Ownership, etc., and to condemn the actions of the LEO's who broke the law in New Orleans by following obviously unlawful orders, and confiscating guns from homeowners.
Additionally, they could address the obviously illegal "show of force", "show me your identification" type of citizen stops (upheldby the Supreme Court as illegal in Brown vs. Texas) that Miami's police department recently decided to spring on citizens walking down the street.
I sincerely hope this post is taken as it is intended, which is a positive suggestion, to try and get more support for both LEO's and for returning our country back to being the representative republic it was intended to be.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
A very high percentage of LEO's got fired in N.O.
I wonder if it was because they failed to comply to the order of taking away the civilians shooters, or if they just did not do their job, or if they were doing criminal acts while no one was around. :barf:
Anyone have information regarding this topic?
Harley
I wonder if it was because they failed to comply to the order of taking away the civilians shooters, or if they just did not do their job, or if they were doing criminal acts while no one was around. :barf:
Anyone have information regarding this topic?
Harley
Not sure how a comment on the commies in Chicago became a cop bash/hate thread but is seems to happen in them all now days and always the same haters. I am giving serious thought to pulling my membership on this forum, am getting very tired of the same hate mail every day...
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Sulaco2, Don't do that.
You know the old saying, PIG = Pride-Integrity-Guts. I think the more we can talk about it maybe the more we can learn from each other, and meet a level of understanding. Some are not going to get there, but others will.
If you are really irritated at the poster hit ignore and also the bad post icon.
Hang in there.
Harley
You know the old saying, PIG = Pride-Integrity-Guts. I think the more we can talk about it maybe the more we can learn from each other, and meet a level of understanding. Some are not going to get there, but others will.
If you are really irritated at the poster hit ignore and also the bad post icon.
Hang in there.
Harley
Harley, I think that's why we have these threads. There are good people and bad people... On both sides. But like the news, it's the bad that sticks in our minds. But there are people that can see both sides of the issue... And believe me, both sides have their merits.
Hopefully, the best that happens is that more, form both sides, can begin to see each other and understand the others side of things.
It's when the die-hard "it's a law" LEO and the "it's an unconstitutional law" civilians are blind to each other, that we get these kind of threads. Two sides, each talking past the other.
Hopefully, the best that happens is that more, form both sides, can begin to see each other and understand the others side of things.
It's when the die-hard "it's a law" LEO and the "it's an unconstitutional law" civilians are blind to each other, that we get these kind of threads. Two sides, each talking past the other.
XavierBreath
New member
1500 officers on the payroll prior to Katrina.
60 have been fired, mostly for looting or failing to return to New Orleans at all. That's 2.5%.
25+ have been suspended.
45 officers resigned from the force after Katrina.
15 officers resigned when placed under investigation for abandonment.
228 officers are now involved in disciplinary hearings for leaving New Orleans without permission in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.
Link
"It's my opinion that only 40 or 50 people, and hopefully some of them are gone, that really makes this department have a bad reputation."
Interim Police Chief Warren Riley
"No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons."
Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley, soon to be Interim Police Chief Warren Riley
muzzleblast525
Inactive
Retired LEO's
I guess I don't see the point of this discussion, or just damn glad I don't live up north with yall......And the guy from Lousiana, WOW....Down here in the south, you can go get yourself a CHL if you want to carry a gun. Personally, being LEO for the past 25 years, I really don't care if a law abiding citizen is carrying a gun or not. As long as he, or she, is not out committing crimes or being STUPID, I could care less, because if you want to use it on me or a brother, I'll take care of you....END OF STORY ON THAT.....So either go get a license to carry, or move to a state that allows carry and quit whining.....Heck, I probably should get a CHL because whenever I buy a gun and don't have it, I have to go through all the background checks. Use to be I could show my State issued LEO license and it would suffice, but not anymore. If you have a CHL, show it and buy it right on the spot. Me, fill out paperwork and get it about 15 minutes later....WHO CARES....
I guess I don't see the point of this discussion, or just damn glad I don't live up north with yall......And the guy from Lousiana, WOW....Down here in the south, you can go get yourself a CHL if you want to carry a gun. Personally, being LEO for the past 25 years, I really don't care if a law abiding citizen is carrying a gun or not. As long as he, or she, is not out committing crimes or being STUPID, I could care less, because if you want to use it on me or a brother, I'll take care of you....END OF STORY ON THAT.....So either go get a license to carry, or move to a state that allows carry and quit whining.....Heck, I probably should get a CHL because whenever I buy a gun and don't have it, I have to go through all the background checks. Use to be I could show my State issued LEO license and it would suffice, but not anymore. If you have a CHL, show it and buy it right on the spot. Me, fill out paperwork and get it about 15 minutes later....WHO CARES....
Where, where are all the LEO's that begged for help to get The Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act of July, 2004 passed. It was supposed to help in eventually setting the stage for A national CCW? Where are they? Are they out calling congress critters, FOP, Police Dept's to help get a national CCW passed? I dont think so.
The LEO's got their national carry, the citizens get the shaft. If retired LEO's in Chicago need help, let them dial 911, just like a citizen has to.
Dont be fooled, this is not, NOT a stepping stone for CCW in IL.
The LEO's got their national carry, the citizens get the shaft. If retired LEO's in Chicago need help, let them dial 911, just like a citizen has to.
Dont be fooled, this is not, NOT a stepping stone for CCW in IL.