Federal Weapons Permit (National Carry) ?!
- Thread starter DrSpock
- Start date
- Status
I was going to say "Burlington", but "Killington" seemed more clever. "Punny", if you will.
So, how about Burlington? They don't require anybody to have a permit to CCW there, and the fabled "Shootouts at the OK Parking Lot" keep failing to materialize. Anchorage, too. In the Atlanta metro area, several million people could carry a gun with no formal training, just $50 and a clean background, yet not once has someone got mown down in the frozen foods section at Kroger over the last pint of Chunky Monkey. Go figure...
As a matter of fact, the state you live in is one of the last states in the union with such draconian gun laws, as state after state has liberalized their CCW provisions over the last fifteen years or so, yet here in the rest of the USA, the blood still isn't running in the streets, and the cops keep going home alive, on the whole.
So, how about Burlington? They don't require anybody to have a permit to CCW there, and the fabled "Shootouts at the OK Parking Lot" keep failing to materialize. Anchorage, too. In the Atlanta metro area, several million people could carry a gun with no formal training, just $50 and a clean background, yet not once has someone got mown down in the frozen foods section at Kroger over the last pint of Chunky Monkey. Go figure...
As a matter of fact, the state you live in is one of the last states in the union with such draconian gun laws, as state after state has liberalized their CCW provisions over the last fifteen years or so, yet here in the rest of the USA, the blood still isn't running in the streets, and the cops keep going home alive, on the whole.
DERIUS T....In answer to your statements I submit the following: Suspecting someone of having concealed firearm does not make them guilty....The LEO does not know if the person carrying the gun is law abiding or not....Second Amendment, many criminals "legally own guns". They just have not been arrested for a crime yet....The LEO does not know who the honest citizen is on the street just by their mere appearance.
Another problem with everyone having handguns is the fact that crimes of burglary, robbery, car theft and larceny, just to name a few, increase the number of illegal handguns on the street buy having the handgun removed from it's rightful owner.
Think of our US Military for a moment. Would you expect to have the same rights as a soldier in the US Military when it comes to firearms. I think not.
Now think of a Police Department. A Police Department is a "QUASI" military organization. If you wouldn't expect to have the rights of a soldier in the military in regard to firearms, then why would you think that you should have the rights of a police officer in a police department? They are trained professionals who's job it is to protect life and property. They are educated in the use of "deadly physical force" and know when it can or cannot be applied, and are continuously being trained in the use of a firearm throughtout their career. I doubt the average citizen is?
Another problem with everyone having handguns is the fact that crimes of burglary, robbery, car theft and larceny, just to name a few, increase the number of illegal handguns on the street buy having the handgun removed from it's rightful owner.
Think of our US Military for a moment. Would you expect to have the same rights as a soldier in the US Military when it comes to firearms. I think not.
Now think of a Police Department. A Police Department is a "QUASI" military organization. If you wouldn't expect to have the rights of a soldier in the military in regard to firearms, then why would you think that you should have the rights of a police officer in a police department? They are trained professionals who's job it is to protect life and property. They are educated in the use of "deadly physical force" and know when it can or cannot be applied, and are continuously being trained in the use of a firearm throughtout their career. I doubt the average citizen is?
Lawdog -
I see your point, and while I'm sure you genuinely believe it may be a first step to national CCW for everyone, my own opinion is that its not. The FOP is only for their membership and cares nothing for the rights of the common citizen. Now that they have their exception under the law, lets see how far they go to support national CCW for all Americans. My guess is we'll not hear much from the FOP about CCW now that they've got theirs. And if we do, I feel certain we'll only see more of the same attitude TPAW has displayed.
Lets face facts; the FOP is a high profile and politically effective organization. Presidential candidates in particular court the FOP and the backing of the FOP every four years. Every political candidate wants to be able to say they have the support of the FOP. That said, why hasn't the FOP officially supported a national CCW for all Americans? When the national CCW for cops bill was under discussion in Congress, why didn't the FOP come out and publicly advocate and endorse it for ALL citizens, not just their own membership? My guess is more of the same attitude TPAW has displayed in his previous post - LEOs are somehow above the unwashed masses and national CCW for EVERYONE isn't good for them. In other words, "Let them eat cake.." Public support of national CCW for all Americans by the FOP might not have been enough to get a bill passed, but there is no reason why the FOP couldn't publicly support both national CCW for all Americans and national CCW for LEOs as a fall-back position. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, but the FOP only chose to support something for their own, rather than for the good of all.
Another example of the myopic view of the FOP is the Lautenberg bill. The FOP has been pushing for an exception for their own. Apparently in the view of the FOP, if you're a wife beater you shouldn't be able to posses a firearm, unless you're a LEO. Why should LE be specifically exempt, and if its such a bad law that they want an exemption, why have they not come out in support of a complete repeal of Lautenberg?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and please provide a cite), but it is my recollection that during the debates over the 1994 AWB in Congress, the FOP came out in support of the bill. Not surprisingly, there was an exemption in the bill for retired LEOs to keep post-94 banned "assault weapons" which would otherwise be prohibited from civilian possession. Again, just more of the "I got mine" attitude in my opinion.
No offense, but in my opinion the FOP continually attempts to create carve outs in the law merely for their membership and doesn't give a hoot about the rights of all, as long as they get special treatment. While an officer is on duty he should have all the benefits and advantages that come with the badge, however, once he is not in service with an agency he becomes a regular citizen and should be subject to ALL the same laws to which any other average John Q. Citizen would be subject.
I see your point, and while I'm sure you genuinely believe it may be a first step to national CCW for everyone, my own opinion is that its not. The FOP is only for their membership and cares nothing for the rights of the common citizen. Now that they have their exception under the law, lets see how far they go to support national CCW for all Americans. My guess is we'll not hear much from the FOP about CCW now that they've got theirs. And if we do, I feel certain we'll only see more of the same attitude TPAW has displayed.
Lets face facts; the FOP is a high profile and politically effective organization. Presidential candidates in particular court the FOP and the backing of the FOP every four years. Every political candidate wants to be able to say they have the support of the FOP. That said, why hasn't the FOP officially supported a national CCW for all Americans? When the national CCW for cops bill was under discussion in Congress, why didn't the FOP come out and publicly advocate and endorse it for ALL citizens, not just their own membership? My guess is more of the same attitude TPAW has displayed in his previous post - LEOs are somehow above the unwashed masses and national CCW for EVERYONE isn't good for them. In other words, "Let them eat cake.." Public support of national CCW for all Americans by the FOP might not have been enough to get a bill passed, but there is no reason why the FOP couldn't publicly support both national CCW for all Americans and national CCW for LEOs as a fall-back position. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, but the FOP only chose to support something for their own, rather than for the good of all.
Another example of the myopic view of the FOP is the Lautenberg bill. The FOP has been pushing for an exception for their own. Apparently in the view of the FOP, if you're a wife beater you shouldn't be able to posses a firearm, unless you're a LEO. Why should LE be specifically exempt, and if its such a bad law that they want an exemption, why have they not come out in support of a complete repeal of Lautenberg?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and please provide a cite), but it is my recollection that during the debates over the 1994 AWB in Congress, the FOP came out in support of the bill. Not surprisingly, there was an exemption in the bill for retired LEOs to keep post-94 banned "assault weapons" which would otherwise be prohibited from civilian possession. Again, just more of the "I got mine" attitude in my opinion.
No offense, but in my opinion the FOP continually attempts to create carve outs in the law merely for their membership and doesn't give a hoot about the rights of all, as long as they get special treatment. While an officer is on duty he should have all the benefits and advantages that come with the badge, however, once he is not in service with an agency he becomes a regular citizen and should be subject to ALL the same laws to which any other average John Q. Citizen would be subject.
Tpaw -
I don't even know where to start with this one. Sara Brady would probably be proud of that logic. In my view, you're just one step away from saying non-LEO shouldn't even be able to possess guns because they might commit a crime.
So you are not in favor of CCW for any citizen in ANY state? In my home state (PA) hundreds of thousands of people have CCW. They get a license and carry legally everyday. Explain the difference and why aren't the streets of PA flowing with blood. Are you completely against non-LEO CCW?
I don't even know where to start with this one. Sara Brady would probably be proud of that logic. In my view, you're just one step away from saying non-LEO shouldn't even be able to possess guns because they might commit a crime.
So you are not in favor of CCW for any citizen in ANY state? In my home state (PA) hundreds of thousands of people have CCW. They get a license and carry legally everyday. Explain the difference and why aren't the streets of PA flowing with blood. Are you completely against non-LEO CCW?
Shaggy.... you read me all wrong. I'm in complete agreement with the 2nd Amendment. As a matter of fact, for the past month I have lead the anti AWB Bills (A 2466 and S 2445) here in New York. My previous posts on this site and others like it will prove that.
I am not against a CCW, as long as proper testing, screening and training is required so that the individual will be familiar with his or her firearm, and know when they can legally use deadly physical force.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
I instruct rifle, pistol and shotgun for the NRA. You would be astonished to know how many students I've had that own a handgun, and know nothing about them! Thank God they have the interest to learn. At least I know that when they hit the street, they will be prepared and hopefully competent enough to make the right decision.
I also taught firearms and tactics training for the NYPD.
Just my 2 cents.
I am not against a CCW, as long as proper testing, screening and training is required so that the individual will be familiar with his or her firearm, and know when they can legally use deadly physical force.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
I instruct rifle, pistol and shotgun for the NRA. You would be astonished to know how many students I've had that own a handgun, and know nothing about them! Thank God they have the interest to learn. At least I know that when they hit the street, they will be prepared and hopefully competent enough to make the right decision.
I also taught firearms and tactics training for the NYPD.
Just my 2 cents.
TPAW - Somehow I figured you'd say that.
Who do you propose decide on what testing, training, and screening is appropriate? BATFE? The CA DoJ? The FBI? As long as its a government organization, the criteria of what testing, training, and screening is appropriate can sway with the political wind and be used to achieve greater gun control. How would you like if the screening process also dictated that anyone, LEO or non-LEO, wanting a national CCW must post a $100,000 cash bond to insure against potential liability? How many people do you know that could come up with $100k to put on hold sothey could exercise their "rights"?
In many states, the only requirement for a CCW is the same as to legally purchase a firearm - clean record, etc. In my opinion, if you can legally buy a firearm you should be able to carry it concealed. Just because a LEO may have a fear that untrained, untested individuals won't follow the law with regard to use, does not necessarily make it a valid argument for training, testing, etc. Again, if such were the case, why are the streets in Pennsylvania, Vermont, Arizona and numerous other states without training or testing requirements on their CCW awash with blood? If a law abiding individual who has a CCW can't use it within the bounds of the law, then penalize them as the criminals they really are and leave the rest of the responsible, law abiding gun owners alone.
Unique 5.7
New member
JMC - You seem as if you've been "bought off" on this right to carry arms issue. You are coming off a bit smug that YOU can carry as a retired LEO and the heck with the rest. Rich has a point and you seem very "soft" on the 2nd Amendment.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
TPAW said:
TPAW said:
TPAW - Do you not understand that mandatory governmental testing, screening and training is an infringement? Are the examples of Vermont and Alaska lost on you?
Shaggy....If you are required to take a written test and road test to acquire a license to drive a car, and required to take a hunting course and take a written exam to acquire a hunting license, then why would you be against a handgun course and test to acquire a CCW. It's for your own safety and everyone else's safety.
Would you give someone the keys to your car if they couldn't drive and didn't know the rules of the road? Would you give a rifle to someone and expect him to know how to hunt or the rules of hunting?
It only seems senseable that if a person was going to carry a concealed weapon, that he know about the weapon, and when he could legally use the weapon.
You mentioned National CCW. Except for LEO's on the Federal Level, I don't know of any National Level CCW for State, County, City, Town or Village LEO's. Not all LEO's can go interstate with a CCW. And if they can, it's restricted to some states, not all. I'll have to check the reciprocal agreement list to see who does and does not allow LEO's from other states into theirs. I do know that a NYC LEO is not allowed to carry in NJ. If caught, he could be arrested like any one else. I believe the same holds true for PA., I'll have to check.
I'm sure you could tell me what the appropriate action is to take when you see a stop sign or red light. If you ever had to, and I hope you never will, can you tell me (without looking it up) the circumstances by which you could legally use your concealed weapon to take another person's life! If it takes you a long time to think about it, or have to look it up, then it might be a good idea to get trained. Some day you may have to draw that gun and fire, and you'd better be right!
Would you give someone the keys to your car if they couldn't drive and didn't know the rules of the road? Would you give a rifle to someone and expect him to know how to hunt or the rules of hunting?
It only seems senseable that if a person was going to carry a concealed weapon, that he know about the weapon, and when he could legally use the weapon.
You mentioned National CCW. Except for LEO's on the Federal Level, I don't know of any National Level CCW for State, County, City, Town or Village LEO's. Not all LEO's can go interstate with a CCW. And if they can, it's restricted to some states, not all. I'll have to check the reciprocal agreement list to see who does and does not allow LEO's from other states into theirs. I do know that a NYC LEO is not allowed to carry in NJ. If caught, he could be arrested like any one else. I believe the same holds true for PA., I'll have to check.
I'm sure you could tell me what the appropriate action is to take when you see a stop sign or red light. If you ever had to, and I hope you never will, can you tell me (without looking it up) the circumstances by which you could legally use your concealed weapon to take another person's life! If it takes you a long time to think about it, or have to look it up, then it might be a good idea to get trained. Some day you may have to draw that gun and fire, and you'd better be right!
TPAW Wrote:
many criminals, legally own guns? Hows that? If your convicted, you CAN'T OWN A FIREARM. Have not been arrested for a crime YET? If they haven't been arrested, maybe they are not criminals after all?
So I can't own or carry a handgun, as a law abiding citizen because some scumbag MIGHT STEAL IT!? WTF!?
Why not? Ex-cops can carry.....I'm ex-military....so gimme back my '16.....
Actually, they don't HAVE to protect you at all. And as far as the rest of the quote, obviously you haven't been reading ANYTHING in recent years about the bungles, wrongful deaths, DREADFUL ACCURACY, and HORRIBLE WEAPON HANDLING of a vast majority of LEOS.....
many criminals, legally own guns? Hows that? If your convicted, you CAN'T OWN A FIREARM. Have not been arrested for a crime YET? If they haven't been arrested, maybe they are not criminals after all?
So I can't own or carry a handgun, as a law abiding citizen because some scumbag MIGHT STEAL IT!? WTF!?
Why not? Ex-cops can carry.....I'm ex-military....so gimme back my '16.....
Actually, they don't HAVE to protect you at all. And as far as the rest of the quote, obviously you haven't been reading ANYTHING in recent years about the bungles, wrongful deaths, DREADFUL ACCURACY, and HORRIBLE WEAPON HANDLING of a vast majority of LEOS.....
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
BECAUSE DRIVING AND HUNTING AREN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS!TPAW said:
Whoa. Sorry for shouting... I just can't believe that you really believe this... It's right out of Chuck Schumer's speechbook.
Maybe you should read the text of HR218 which was signed into law by President Bush last July. http://leaa.org/218/218text.htmlTPAW said:
If you were wrong about that, perhaps you might be wrong about mandatory governmental training. Just a thought...
Derius T...Many criminals arrested with a hand gun for the first time, were found guilty for neumerous crimes committed with that gun prior to their first arrest. Ballistics has determined that.
Yes you can carry a hand gun even though it may get stolen.
X-cops and X-military...two different government agencies, federal versus state, county and village. I would like my full-auto M-16 back also! Actually, I carried the CAR 15.
I have no excuse for the mishaps of LEO's. Poor training, lack of disipline, stupid, pissed off, who knows why they do what they do? Bad apples in every bunch. Just human like you and me.
Yes you can carry a hand gun even though it may get stolen.
X-cops and X-military...two different government agencies, federal versus state, county and village. I would like my full-auto M-16 back also! Actually, I carried the CAR 15.
I have no excuse for the mishaps of LEO's. Poor training, lack of disipline, stupid, pissed off, who knows why they do what they do? Bad apples in every bunch. Just human like you and me.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
There's no reson to malign police officers, Derius, and I disagree that a "vast majority" exhibit these deficiencies. I hope that the focus of this thread will be to convince readers that law enforcement and the citizenry must work together for full recognition of the rights of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.Derius_T said:
Sadly, that does not seem to be the case as TPAW and JMC's posts will attest.
TheBluesMan....Having been in law enforcement for more than 20 years I must say that most police officers perform their duties in the most professional manner possible, and I respect them for that. The sad truth is that there are a few that hide behind the badge who ruin it for all of us.
Also, I read HR218. I stand corrected, thank you.
Also, I read HR218. I stand corrected, thank you.
TPAW -
I didn't have to take any test to get my CCW - and to my knowledge most states that have CCW don't have any requirement for training or testing. If someone with a CCW uses their weapon in an unlawful or criminally reckless manner, they lose their CCW and will likely go to jail. If they injure another person, we have a civil court system to deal with it and award damages as deemed necessary by a jury. Similarly, if I entrust my car to someone who can't drive in a responsible manner and injures another person, I can be held civilly liable for negligent entrustment.
Return for a moment to my previous question of the requirement of a cash bond; would you advocate a requirement of posting of a $100,000 cash bond for the issuance of any CCW (to LEO or non-LEO)? After all, it would be for your safety and everyone else's safety. If you accidently injured someone your cash bond would be forfeit as damages. Would that be fair in your opinion? What if it was $200,000?
You compared a CCW to a drivers license. The difference between CCW and the test for drivers license is that a drivers license is not a right (selective incorporation notwithstanding). It is a privilege granted by the state.
What you advocate with support for testing and training requirements to get a CCW amounts to a prior restraint on the exercise of a right. Would you similarly advocate a law that required anyone who wanted to buy a gun to have a graduate degree? After all, it would be for your safety and everyone else's safety. People with advanced degrees are certainly more educated and less likely to commit crimes.
Am I making any sense; do you see where that sort of thinking and logic can lead?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
TPAW, all I can say is "WOW". Has it occurred to you that you are a C-I-V-V-L-I-A-N just like the rest of us? No one argued that we should have your authority....but your "rights"? When was the Bill of Rights amended as to this?TPAW said:
You are not in a "quasi-military" organization; unless chain of command grants such status; in which case, The Salvation Army also qualifies, as do many Fraternities. You are in a public sector job, that you freely chose. I thank you for your service, but you are not exactly a career soldier...if that's what you wish for your life, re-enlist.
This thread is getting real divisive real fast. I can pretty much assure y'all that is not going to continue.
Rich
Rich Lucibella...Yes, I do realize that I am a civilian and just like anyone else. No special treatment here. And, "Quasi" as in "resembling" the military. Check Webster. And, no thanks to the career soldier thing, I did my time as an Infantry Sergeant in Vietnam. How about you?
- Status