Federal Weapons Permit (National Carry) ?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich,

Class distinction is another term that has never come out of my mouth in regard to this issue. I don't like it or even the sound of it.

Basically I'm in favor of a nation wide carry law for all but when someone approaches the issue as above and starts with the "us" vs. "them" mentality, I have serious doubts where I stand.

I also have my doubts about those who feel that a set of reasonable standards are not necessary to carry legally.

I'm required to meet the same standards semi-annually as an active officer to keep my NJ permit and be valid under 108-277. This is at my own expense.

It took 12 long years of hard work to have H.R. 218 passed and become Public Law 108-277. Those not covered under this law should begin the process to obtain backing to make it reality. ;)

It took the shooting death of an unarmed retired chief of police here in NJ to get the politicians off their dead asses to pass the Retired Officer's Carry Permit Law here.

I feel every retired LEO should have the right to carry where ever he/she goes, they have earned it in so many ways.

Fair enough?
 
JMC said:
I feel every retired LEO should have the right to carry where ever he/she goes, they have earned it in so many ways.
Click to expand...
And I feel every Law Abiding Citizen should have the same right. Many of us have also worked 25 years; often in a public service position. None of us are at any lesser risk when we travel.

I opposed the law, just as I would oppose "Tax Relief by Degrees"....eg: "We're going to give it just to Federal Employees....your turn will come, someday, perhaps". That's not what I call "moving freedom forward". Like it or not, it legislates a privileged class.
Rich
 
I'm required to meet the same standards semi-annually as an active officer to keep my NJ permit and be valid under 108-277. This is at my own expense.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many NJ citizens would love to meet these standards, at their own expense of course, and be able to carry a weapon. But they cannot because NJ doesn't consider its all of its citizens to be equal.
 
JMC, I don't believe anyone is saying that LEO shouldn't be able to nationwide carry... they SHOULD be able to... and so should I and everyone else.

I think it's wrong that the second amendment now only applies to LEO and retired LEO.
 
My BIL is a a retired US Customs pilot. When he was active, HE WAS REQUIRED to carry a firearm with him at all times. Especially on airplaines and other public transportation.

As a retired customs agent, he still carries everywhere. The above law was passed right about the time he retired, so he never stopped carrying. He had NO PROBLEMS getting on a plane armed, after showing his id and some form of id showing him to be retired customs.

With the exception of getting on SOME forms of public transportation, CCW is fairly easy. Exceptions would be transportation that requires you to go through the metal detector.

I have traveled all over our land, ALWAYS ARMED and have never had any problems. FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. Any time I have been stopped by a police officer, I explain where I am from and why I am carrying.

Of course, I DON'T TRAVEL to states that exclude CCW. The exception was Kali, where I carried lots of times with no ill effect.

I'm not saying that I disagree that we all should have the ability to legally carry anywhere. However, I PERSONALLY believe that if you accept that as the 'law of the land' (not being able to protect you and yours via ccw) then you expose yourself to all sorts of nastiness. I refuse to expose my wife and myself to unecessary danger.

That's just me.
 
I wonder how many NJ citizens would love to meet these standards, at their own expense of course, and be able to carry a weapon. But they cannot because NJ doesn't consider its all of its citizens to be equal.
Click to expand...

Then they had better get moving on obtaining the right backing/support for a national CCW law. Maybe they can get it in less than the 12 years that it took for this one.

The other alternative is to put in 25 years or more as an LEO to qualify. ;)
 
Actually, JMC, it only requires 15 years on the job or service related disability prior to that point.

Of course it doesn't extend the right to a 14 year 9 month veteran or to the spouse of an officer, KIA, for instance. He/She simply hasn't sacrificed enough to have, as you put it, "earned" the privilege. Go figure. ;)
Rich
 
Then they had better get moving on obtaining the right backing/support for a national CCW law. Maybe they can get it in less than the 12 years that it took for this one.
Click to expand...

Nifty idea, but when we have groups like the FOP pushing their anti-gun agenda at any chance they get, it makes it more difficult for citizens groups to gain any headway. The stance of the FOP makes for great soundbites on the news and in politics. BTW, where does the FOP stand on the issue of the 5.7 and "assault pistol" bill Lautenberg and Corzine are currently pushing? Yet at the same time I'm sure they want to have the opportunity to buy FNP90's and 5.7 pistols for their own/department use. Care to bet on what the stance of the FOP would be if a national CCW for the average non-LEO citizen came up? :rolleyes:
 
Actually there is a loophole in the Federal law books that allows CC in something like 47 or 46 states. If one were to become a BEA, (Bail Enforcement Agenet), there is an old law on the books that allows BEA's who are basically bounty hunters, to carry concealed.
 
Got a cite for that?

A lot is made of "or in the pursuit of suspects" and "pursuant to a lawful purpose" as "loopholes". Actually try to justify any particular carry incident with just them in most states and you'll be tried and convicted.

Much like the theories of tax evasion, they just don't work, ever.
 
retired leo ccw

I too have no problem with retired leo's carrying concealed anymore than any other citizen. However in my view the law G.W. signed into law is unconstitutional since it creates a special class. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could quote chapter and verse on that. Interestingly any state law that does not recognize another states ccw is also unconstitutional under the "full faith and credit clause". In other words, for the same reason all states are required to recognize anothers states drivers license. That said anyone wishing to exercise that right by bringing a gun had also better bring lawyers and lots of money. :D
 
"Mr. Equalprotectionunderthelaw" just turned up DOA at the local ER, dead by GSW from an unidentified assailant... :(
 
What Rich said.

And the whole concept of the Federal legislature passing a law that allows anyone to carry anything in any State is a farce, and a legal perversion. It is the States that have jurisdiction; and we have a legal system based on the jurisprudence of prohibition. There is no, and never has been any federal law prohibiting the carrying of handguns in the jurisdictions of the fifty States - and the federal government can not pass a law that "allows" anything in this regard.

All Comrade Bush and the geldings in Congress have "accomplished" is to persuade the Legislatures of the States to agree on something. And add to their list of elitisms, while remaining dumb concerning the rights of everyone else.
 
Well,

I have been a civilian employee of a Law Enforcement agency for 20 years now, and while I think a National Carry for ACTIVE police officers is a good thing , I question the wisdom allowing ALL retirees to carry .

I have not read all the requirements of the bill, but what about the 20 year veteran who is corrupt, hot-headed, uses force too often, etc who is allowed to "retire" instead of being fired or arrested? It happens all the time in this business. They dont want the publicity, so they let you "retire".

I personally feel all law abiding citizens should be able to carry (unlicensed) nationally, but if we are gonna license people, we need to do it fairly and equally. If I have to jump through hoops to carry, then every citizen should have to do the same.
 
US Federal Marshall would cover the most area. FBI/SS can't even carry on passenger aircraft without permission.
 
Without going into all the legal mumbo jumbo about retired LEO having the right to full carry, it boils down to this, at least in New York. As a retired LEO I reserve the right to FULL CARRY for this reason and this reason alone.
It is presumed that during your career as a police officer, you were responsible for putting bad guys away. There is always the chance that when they get out of prison, some might try to get some type of retrobution and seek vengence on the officer who arrested him, or his family.
Hence, the retired LEO has the right to FULL CARRY to protect himself and his family.
That's the truth of the matter in layman's terms.
 
Without going into all the legal mumbo jumbo about retired LEO having the right to full carry, it boils down to this, at least in New York. As a retired LEO I reserve the right to FULL CARRY for this reason and this reason alone.
It is presumed that during your career as a police officer, you were responsible for putting bad guys away. There is always the chance that when they get out of prison, some might try to get some type of retrobution and seek vengence on the officer who arrested him, or his family.
Hence, the retired LEO has the right to FULL CARRY to protect himself and his family.
That's the truth of the matter in layman's terms.
Click to expand...

Well thats the justification for the law, whether or not its a valid argument is another matter altogether. Personally, I think its BS. Care to provide a cite to some statistics about the rate of retaliatory attacks by ex-cons on retired LEOs?

And please don't misunderstand; I'm not anti-cop, but I see no valid reason why only LEO or retired LEO should enjoy a right any individual could benefit from and should be able to avail themselves of.
 
Actually there is a loophole in the Federal law books that allows CC in something like 47 or 46 states. If one were to become a BEA, (Bail Enforcement Agenet), there is an old law on the books that allows BEA's who are basically bounty hunters, to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

Duxman... a "bail enforcement agent" has no authority EVER in any state to carry a pistol concealed, unless he carries a concealed weapons permit. Bail enforcement agents report to no agency for liability except their private employer. There is no www.bea.gov (Except Bureau of EconomicAnalysis). In fact, in many states they cannot wear items that say "Bail Enforcement" etc.

Think of how many bail enforcement agents would be in America right now. I'd be one if that were the case... but I'm not, because Bail Enforcement Agents have no authority to carry concealed weapons.

I've arrested three Joe Schmoes showing me a bail enforcement badge (purchased at a gun show or something) and an authentic Florida bail recovery agent license, all because they didn't have a permit for their handgun.

I went to court on all three, all three were put behind bars on several accounts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top