Police CCW exemptions

So much crying and cop bashing, Sounds like 5 year olds, JOHNNY HAS ONE, HOW COME I CANT HAVE ONE.


I think I'll start a topic crying about private CCWers get special priviliges I dont.

In this state, those with CCW permits dont have to have a back ground check prior to buying a gun. I carry under HR 218 so I have to undergo the back ground check each time I buy a firearm. Base on the logic of this topic, I should start whinning until everyone has to go through the Back Ground Check. How silly would that be.

Don't ever say that street cops support this or that because the FOP or IAACPs support something. They are not the same.

There was a poll on Officer.com a while back stating 80% of STREET cops support the right of individuals to carry concealed. (I just tried to find the poll but couldnt. It was from a while back).

Anyway its not the Brady group dividing us, We are doing the dividing with this petty crap.

Based on the number of gun owners out there we should own this country, I've read there are more gun owners then voters in the last election. But we can't do anything because of all the bickering among ourselves. We deserve what we get.
 
Anyway its not the Brady group dividing us, We are doing the dividing with this petty crap.

Based on the number of gun owners out there we should own this country, I've read there are more gun owners then voters in the last election. But we can't do anything because of all the bickering among ourselves. We deserve what we get.
Click to expand...
Gun owners are not herd animals, by and large.
 
Gun owners are not herd animals, by and large.
Click to expand...

I would tend to disagree. The whole "sporting use" tactic the anti's use. That tends to take the "sportsman" out of the debate.

"yeah take those scary handguns of the street but leave my hunting rifle alone"
 
I just got a great idea! How about instead of bashing cops and trying to bring them down to our level by taking away their ability to carry nationwide, we lift ourselves to their level by calling congressmen and senators to try to gain that ability for ourselves? Even if we fail to get the ability, at least somebody actually does have that privilege. We in no way benefit from removing police ability to carry nationwide.

Imagine that we're all in a vast pit, where the bottom is slavery and the top is freedom. Instead of focusing all of our energy on dragging everyone back down in the pit when they start climbing, we should work together to try to get everyone out of the pit. Maybe that analogy didn't make any sense, but maybe it did. You guys can see what I mean by now.

By the way, we can still vacation in states that will reciprocate our permits.
 
"As soon as the uniform comes off so should any responsibility and extra privileges. "

I disagree. We ask them to do a lot of our dirty work and go face to face with the bad guys on a daily basis and you want them to have to walk around unarmed, even after they're retired? What kind of poorly thought out logic brought you to that conclusion?

John
 
ilbob said:
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.
Click to expand...
I agree. State [and Federal] restrictions on carrying firearms are grossly unconstitutional. If I had it my way, everyone would be exempt from these laws, because they wouldn't exist. That is not reality, however. For now, I'll settle for police being exempt. Baby steps may be the best way to tackle this problem. With more and more loosening of laws, and people not seeing huge consequences, besides maybe a declining crime rate, they may soon be open to more freedom.

I added an edit in red.
 
Last edited:
As an LEO in Polk County Florida, I know what your brother means. Polk is about the only County in FL that I know of where LEO's give up their weapons at court to be protected by Wackenhut security guards armed with .38 revolvers. Silly rule enacted by a chief judge which has been in place for my 18 years as a cop here. Just remember that if things go bad while you're in court, the wackenhut guys will and Bailiff's will protect you:D

I'm all in favor of concealed permits for whoever qualifies for them. Heck, I wish there were more of them out there but for the people who say "make us equal with the cops" I have to agree with the poster who said if you want to take the background, polygraph, drug test, psych screening, neighborhood canvas and provide a list of references, then carry on.

Luckily, Florida is pretty good about issuing permits so we have it better then most states. Also, I have a CCP for the simple reason that if I want to buy a handgun, I don't have to wait three days. Even as a cop, walking in with a weapon on my side, without a CCP I have to wait three days...kinda stupid if you ask me but the loophole has never been addressed
 
Also, I have a CCP for the simple reason that if I want to buy a handgun, I don't have to wait three days. Even as a cop, walking in with a weapon on my side, without a CCP I have to wait three days...kinda stupid if you ask me but the loophole has never been addressed
Click to expand...

At least we got you out of the background check. :) Couldn't close all of the loopholes. Back in the 80's when the "Shall Issue" bill was working its way through the legislature, they came up with all kinds of restrictions. Fortunately, many didn't make it into law. They even have a provision which bans the carrying of a machinegun with a CCW. I always wonder who thought that one up. Did they really think someone would walk around with a machinegun under their shirt?
 
Last edited:
There is a good deal of anti-LE sentiment on this board. It's pretty easy to tell the wannabe badge-holders, usually the ones asking about where to get their CCW badge. I write it off to being guys who failed the psych evals or the types who would prefer to move to Montana, declare themselves to be a sovereign country, and then would be judge and police chief. They want the badges and perceived power so badly. Power freaks are everywhere. Even if they had managed to pass the psych testing, they'd be real unhappy to learn that real law enforcement still involves many, many levels of supervisors, prosecutors, and politicos reviewing your work.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you can see it that way if you want to. The premise is also understandable from from a purely practical basis: Non-LEO CCW'ers want a lack of stupid restrictions on carrying, and LEO's want a lack of stupid restrictions on carrying. But treating the two populations differently allows the anti-gun crowd to accomplish two things:
  • disallowing non_LEO carry in varied and strange ways, and
  • not bringing forth the considerable political clout of the police to serve the same agenda as non-LEO carry.

All your anger at alleged "anti-LEO sentiment" here aside, there is nothing terribly sinister about noticing that police in general are seen as having considerable political clout -- and often appear to care more, and try harder, to protect their own carry privileges than the CCW rights non-LEO's. So there's noting terribly sinister about speculating that deliberately aiming to put "ya'll" in the same boat with "us'ns" might be an effective way to make sure that everyone possessed more carry rights.

Or said another way, if the distinction was erased, then anti-gunners would find it more difficult restricting everyone's rights, if doing so also restricted the carry privileges of police at the same time.
 
  • disallowing non_LEO carry in varied and strange ways, and
  • not bringing forth the considerable political clout of the police to serve the same agenda as non-LEO carry.
Click to expand...

Bingo.:) Obviously...i couldn't state it that clearly myself. If the two groups were on the same page, maybe some of the stated animosity...would diminish thru argueing a common cause, instead of argueing as if each side has some kind of ulterior motive. Just a thought...it's only 2a after all.
 
In answer to the op question

Not very fast.

As someone once said "pointing to the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming."

Cops (of all stripes) "enjoy" certain priveleges not enjoyed by the general public. The also "enjoy" some responsibilities not shared by the general public. Whining to get some of that reduced or eliminated in the hope of getting more for us is the wrong way to go about it.

Those people who are in positions of power, and oppose anyone (including police) having/carrying a gun when not "on duty" would be delighted with such an approach. And I reckon the police (and a number of the rest of us) would be upset.

I do believe any attempt to proceed with this argument will only result in a net loss for the firearms community, the police, and ultimately, the general population as well.

Consider that, in those areas which for bid ordinary citizens concealed carry, but allow it for off duty police, that there are at least some good people out there who are armed!

There is merit to the idea that they are no different from the rest of us, except for their job (and the training that goes with it), but the argument should be "we should have what they have", and not "they shouldn't have it, because we don't". Thats just plain wrong headed. Sorry.
 
Wagonman said:
ilbob said:
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.
Click to expand...
Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
I can't say for ilbob, but in my opinion, yes.

Can anyone name from what derived authority the Federal Government can interfere in the domestic police powers of the individual States?

I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

I am, at the least, consistent with my views of Commerce Clause abuse.
 
Freedom is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of various laws. Having said that, however, it is a legal maxim that all laws are considered to meet constitutional muster unless and until declared otherwise by the judiciary. Thus HR 218 is constitutional at this time.
 
It's really about a very simple principle.

You job does not make you special.

It's your job. In return for doing it, you get a paycheck, and whatever other benefits you. either singly or collectively, depending on whether you're represented by a union or you're own your own, have managed to negotiate from your employer.

And nothing else.

When you're not at work, you're not a cop. When I'm not at work, I'm not an engineer.

Your job does not make you special.

It's just that simple.

--Shannon
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagonman
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbob
We always benefit when grossly unconstitutional laws are rescinded.

Are you saying HR 218 is unconstitutional?

I can't say for ilbob, but in my opinion, yes.

Can anyone name from what derived authority the Federal Government can interfere in the domestic police powers of the individual States?

I was against H.R.218 for the very same reasons I am against the Feds legislating national reciprocity. There is no Constitutional authority.

I am, at the least, consistent with my views of Commerce Clause abuse.
__________________
Al Norris

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Jugiter vigilo, æternus suspicious.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but looking at past acts you are wrong in this matter.

First: The States determine that LE can carry (most require it). Now the feds have, with HR 218 have decided to reconize the states right to determine that LE Officers (active and retired) can carry via the commerice clause (granted a catch all prase) much like one state's driver's license is reconized in other states.

Second: the Feds, right or wrong do have some control of Local & State LE agencies via federal funding. Along the same lines as the DWI/DUI laws (legal limits, etc).

You talk of special rights for LE but neglect to mention added burdens placed on LE & retirees. An example, In Wyoming there is no requirement for any qualification courses to obtain a CC permit. Yes you can attend one, but you can get a CC pemit in Wyoming by presenting your DD214, or attending a hunting safety class. (There is no shooting requirements for Hunter Safety in Wyoming). So in theory you can get a CC permit without ever having fired a gun. And that pemit can be renued every 5 years, again without demistrating you can shoot or have ever shot. WHEREAS, Under HR 218 to carry you are required to qualify yearly on your departments qualification course. Retirees have to qualify on their Depts or if they moved, the coursed used by the new location's LE standards. This sometimes is difficult because few departments will allow no members to qualify for liability purposes.

I'm a bit differant, I have my own range and the Local LE officers use it to qualify when the weather prohibits them from getting to their range and I provide free training to LE officers. So I get my yearly qualification taken care of. Now, based on your reasoning, others who carry under HR218 have a complaint because I get special treatment regardinng the yearly qualification required by HR 218.

There are differant standards for carrying under HR 218 but it goes both ways.

I'm all for a national CC law as I believe our founding fathers intended when they came up with the second ammendment. Until that happens I will not begrudge anyone who can carry legally. Thats like saying no one should carry because there are still states that prohibit CC permits.

This whole conversation is childish, borders on cop bashing. If you think HR218 is unconstitutional by all means file suite, thats your right, however I doubt you'll get very far, for a suite to be sucessful you have to show you are injured in some way. I dont see how HR 218 makes non - LE officers an injured party. But GO FOR IT.
 
Tubee, tell you what, tell my department I don't have to take police action 24/7 regardless of my duty status and I will agree with you. Until such time please do not opine when you are mistaken in your assertion.

This Police bashing is getting tiresome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top