Special Citizens

I've often wondered if anyone had any idea on the number of civilians who showed up that day and started firing on the tower.
Whitman had elevation, concealment, cover, and weapons with more range and power. I doubt someone on the ground with a pistol would have been much of a deterrent.

Our constitution doesn't strictly apply to visitors.
Some parts of it do. Consider Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has held that the protections of the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments apply to all persons within our borders, not just citizens.

Certain political rights, such as voting and jury duty, don't apply, but the implication is that natural rights are protected. That would include the right to defend one's life.

As it stands now, resident and nonimmigrant aliens can buy and own firearms, and in many states, they can get carry permits.
 
The Dorner issue certainly is a poster child but to my mind the truck that came under fire by police who miss identified it as Dorners vehicle are also poster children on this issue.

Im my personal opinion the average officer is out there doing the best they can do on one of the worlds most thankless jobs. I get it that not every officer is worthy of that badge but that kind of thing applies to every profession.

As a exercise in though only, I can see how an argument might be made that the women in the truck needed full auto Ars to counter the illegal attack they came under. An argument could also be made that the people of that county need full auto arms in case the police in general go on a killing rampage in either by being the inciting criminal rampaging through town or in being an officer who decides justice is spraying the public with lead for having a truck that's not even close to being a match.

Then there's the cop that's being charged that's related to the blade runner case, who apparently shot randomly at a buss full of people or some such thing. Can you imagine being a CCW carrier on that bus?

I totally honor what the general men and women in blue do for us as a whole, but there seems to be a ever growing body of evidence that innocent law abiding citizens are being attacked with police weapons by former and current police using Ar's and whatever other weapons. I think the ones that are under gunned are the law abiding citizens who are being denied the weapons we are constitutionally allowed.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court has held that the protections of the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments apply to all persons within our borders, not just citizens.

Certain political rights, such as voting and jury duty, don't apply, but the implication is that natural rights are protected. That would include the right to defend one's life.

As it stands now, resident and nonimmigrant aliens can buy and own firearms, and in many states, they can get carry permits.

And yet in Heller both the Majority opinion, and Stevens' dissent define the people as respectively
...members of the political community
and
...law-abiding citizens

This is not inconsistent with extending 5th and 6th amendment protections to non-citizenry as those amendments refer to a person or an accused. The First Amendment protections also refer to Congress with only two clauses held for "The People" - peaceable assembly and the right of the people to redress grievances. That reads to me that Congress may make no law prohibiting a visitor from speaking, but nothing prevents laws prohibiting non-citizens from assembling on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue- or necessarily gives them standing to petition the City of New York in a New York court- though they may have standing in Federal court as a foreign national. At least as I understand this stuff as a layman.
 
Sound like the LEOSA act to you guys?

Someone mentioned the Titles of Nobility Clause(s), and that got me searching around. I can't find a whole lot of case law, or even a lawyer to normal person dictionary definition of Titles of Nobility, but this wiki definition had a lot of similarities to LEOSA and AWB etc exemptions to me...
 
Last edited:
Jim Dandy

You make a good point. There are many areas where it sounds close.

Once the commendation ceremony was complete, the lord and vassal were in a feudal relationship with agreed obligations to one another. The vassal's principal obligation to the lord was to "aid", or military service. Using whatever equipment the vassal could obtain by virtue of the revenues from the fief, the vassal was responsible to answer calls to military service on behalf of the lord. This security of military help was the primary reason the lord entered into the feudal relationship. In addition, the vassal could have other obligations to his lord, such as attendance at his court, whether manorial, baronial, both termed court baron, or at the king's court.[12]

I have a Bachelor's in Life Science, not law. Can anyone with the knowledge chime in here? Am I COMPLETELY off base?
 
i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread. No, i am not surprised that some posters feel that way or express those opinions, what i am surprised about is that the moderators encourage it and participate in it themselves. That I have not experienced in any other gun forum that i have participated in.

The overwhelming majority of police officers and firefighters for that matter are strongly patriotic and strongly pro second amendment for everyone. I personally in the last few months have made numerous phone calls, written numerous letters and emails to my federal and state representatives opposing any negative changes in gun laws for anyone. I have also contributed to a lawsuit here in New York to overturn the SAFE Act for all.

I support national reciprocity but after reading these comments perhaps I should just dedicate my time, effort and money into improving LEOSA for myself and other active and retired LEO's.

At a time when unity is vital, threads like this play right into the anti's aim of dividing and conquering. I think that the moderators of this forum have done a diservice and harm to the pro second amendment community with their behavior in this thread.
 
^^ I disagree. I don't think that we are targeting the average LEO "per se", but that we believe that pressure is exerted on politicians by other politicians, that Police Chiefs and Sheriffs *are* other politicians, and that they will respond to complaints brought to them by individual officers and their union leaders, and that this will ONLY happen when the line-officer feels the pain.

So... it's a trickle-up effect we are looking for, and the way to do that is to hold everyones feet to the same fire. So, sad to say... you're gonna feel the pain. Part of that pain is feeling it here in the forums. Like the man said: "Nothing personal, it's just business". We are not against the man, we are against special privileges for the few.

There is no reason a retired LEO should have more rights than a citizen. That does not mean I want to take away their rights... I want to increase the ability of the average man to enjoy the same rights. But restrict mine and I'm going to encourage people to restrict yours.


Willie

.
 
i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread.

I'm surprised that you can so thoroughly misconstrue the positions taken as being hostility and ignorance toward police.

Vehemence, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
There is no reason a retired LEO should have more rights than a citizen. That does not mean I want to take away their rights... I want to increase the ability of the average man to enjoy the same rights. But restrict mine and I'm going to encourage people to restrict yours.

There are plenty of people whose self-approval ratings are consistently above 100% and who think they are "special" compared to...a whole bunch of other people, and for a lot of different reasons.

Personally, I have met some LEO's with the "special" complex and met others who don't have it. My distaste for such people is equal, regardless of their profession.

In this narrow matter, some LEO's and politicians are tell me I don't need things they regard as special to them. Since they have no idea when or where or what danger I may face and need a firearm for, I cannot agree with their ideas.

If they need AR's and big magazines because of the local gangs, then I might, too. The LEO's and pols cannot tell me I don't from any rational basis they can prove. In fact, there is more rational evidence available that says I should be equally armed, if I choose to be.

I ride with Willie on this one. Since the anti's cannot be rational, we have to take other paths.

It wasn't me who said "hit back twice as hard..."
 
I personally am not feeling any pain. I have no "special" weapons. I dont even own a rifle. I do have a nice collection of handguns, nothing larger than 45 lc, mostly small caliber, only one handgun even affected by the NY Safe Act for magazine capacity.
I understand posts from people who have had negative interactions with law enforcement who have had the "special" complex or who felt that they were wronged at one time or another. I also live in the real world and realize that not everyone does the right thing and that there are less than stellar leo's out there . Your posts are not making me feel any pain and i could care less if you like me based on what work i have done in the past. I make the phone calls, emails and contribute because it is the right thing to do for my family, friends, other gun owners, the future of the second amendment etc. even though I dont personally own much that would be affected at this present time.

Fostering division is just going to create further division. This is the worst possible time for that.

Yes, Brian i do know what vehemence means and i misconstrued nothing.
I find the site as a whole enjoyable and the legal section usually enlightening and educational. I found this thread to be less so.
 
"i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread. No, i am not surprised that some posters feel that way or express those opinions, what i am surprised about is that the moderators encourage it and participate in it themselves. That I have not experienced in any other gun forum that i have participated in."

Perhaps you could point out the comments which you felt were hostile toward LEO's? It may very well be that you read them wrong or simply misconstrued them. It may also be that you are either an active or retired LEO and maybe a bit oversensitive to a conversation about them. I don't think anyone here in this forum is hostile towards LEO's but to a system that divides people further into castes.
 
i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread

Heyjoe-

For most of us- obviously some of us DO have an anti-authority bias that goes beyond police but again for most of us- Its not the police we have a problem with, but the special treatment they're getting in legislation crafting.

I have zero problem with the goal of the LEOSA act for example. I have a problem with the principle of how they got there. If I were to challenge the law, and win, I'd even go so far as to ask the court to announce their verdict but somehow delay the application of the verdict for a reasonable period for the Congress to craft something constitutional that does the same thing- perhaps national reciprocity perhaps something else.

I can't think of a single special privilege- well official one anyway- law enforcement has BEYOND arms. Even the immunity from prosecution for committing crimes extends to civilians acting in concert with police forces in an undercover sting. Children buying tobacco or alcohol is just one example that leaps off the page at me.
 
Heyjoe,

I have re-read this post from beginning to end. I could not see anything that I would construe of as offensive. However, since I was the one that started this thread, I apologize that you felt so. I do hope that you re-read the very first post and see that this thread was intentionally written with the hopes that no one would be offended. This having been stated, I look forward to you continuing in this thread for a civilized, courteous debate.

David
 
What I find amusing is that, at least in the Sheriff's Department I served in for 26 years, that most of the deputies don't really care about the shooting sports or owning rifles. It was hard to find someone interested in going shooting on weekends and if I could find somebody who was interested they didn't own the right type of firearm or have any ammunition. I had to lend them my stuff half the time. I found it amusing that a group of people who carry for a living never had much more than what was issued to them. These are the same people I would get a kick out of on that "once a year" qualification of 40 rounds for their performance. I'd like to know what study or information was obtained to make LEOs a necessary exception to a possible future law in the politicians mind or was it just to quell any complaining or road blocks on the issue.
 
heyjoe, I don't have to dislike or disrespect cops to think that they should not be afforded special privileges.

A couple of my best friends are cops, in fact, and they are pro-RKBA.

LEOSA is a special privilege; until we have national reciprocity for all law-abiding citizens, I do not see why we should have extra-jurisdictional reciprocity for active LEOs, nor national reciprocity for retired LEOs.

While you may think that viewpoint is divisive, my take on it is different - the existence of LEOSA allows antis to say "the rest of you don't need guns, we have all these police officers carrying." It allows anti pols to claim they reached across the aisle in crafting pro-RKBA legislation.

To that extent, LEOs have been used as pawns.
 
"To that extent, LEOs have been used as pawns."

And have not exactly been found complaining about it either.....



Willie



.

The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others."Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?" Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.

In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violation, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything and what they swallowed did them no harm because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.

George Orwell, Animal Farm


.
 
Last edited:
On the cop thing... there are a certain number of folks who just don't like the po-po. Sometimes this is caused by random contact with a badge-wearing wanker. (I don't like badge-wearing wankers either.)

Sometimes this the irrational reaction of people who were caught consciously doing something blatantly illegal (child molestation, armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, etc.) and they refuse to accept responsibility for the unpleasant consequences that result. "Damn pigs singled me out/set me up" etc. "I gonna keel that mofo when I get out!!"

You stay in the biz long enough, you make enemies. You make enough enemies, sooner or later one will try to settle your hash. That alone is justification enough for cops to carry 24/7. I've experienced it, so It doesn't bother me that some folks disagree with that on its face. I simply don't care what anybody else thinks of it.

There is a widespread notion that cops don't like to shoot, can't shoot or are buffoons with guns. Not in my circles... but I've been a handgun aficionado since my teens. Heck one of the reasons LE interested me was because I loved to shoot. The guys in my outfit are shooters to the last man- always dragging in some new acquisition or asking about one they want to buy. Repeat cycle with holsters, scopes, magazines and accessories. A HUGE number of us are pro-2A. We have, in some cases, drawn the ire of our superiors and compromised out careers because of our stance on this subject. We are not the uniforms you see standing behind the anti-gun politician at the press conference. There are, unfortunately, a few of my number who will do it.

I'm not going to change anybody's mind here and that's cool. I'll just suggest that you rethink the notion that every cop lives it and breathes 'the job' all the time. If you knew me, you'd know how small a part of me the badge really occupies. I do my job with it on and I am glad to take it off at the end of the day. I sure as heck don't go looking for stuff on my days off.

Except gun bargains, ammo & reloading components. I still love to shoot.
 
That's about what I said Sarge. And like most of us have said, we don't object to LEOSA, we just feel its only half of what should have been enacted. Especially to be "legal" constitutionally- and that national reciprocity or some form of civilian inclusion should have been there to maintain equal protection.

The notion that cops don't like to shoot, or as a generality are bufoons is not widespread here. More than just you are LEO's who post here. I had a teacher who was married to the sheriff of my county, though she wasn't at the time, she was still working her way up. He routinely outshot his wife, but she was no slouch.

Some of the recent posts may not have been clear. LEO's have been used as pawns... not just the police chief up there reading the speech written by the Mayor's staff, or the Sheriff pandering to his pro-2A county in preparation for his/her next election. Both aren't unheard of- but even the rank and file who don't have a "voice".

By including LEO exemptions, they both nullify the drive for most of the rank and file to speak out, heading off that argument before it's made, AND subtly divide gun owners into two camps of "responsible law enforcement" and "reckless gun nuts". Now Willie pointed out the rank and file officers aren't saying much about this, but its difficult to blame them. I don't see a lot of men commenting on sexual assault in the military, or abortion rights either. If you don't have a dog in the pony show, you don't work too hard selling tickets- See that nullification point above-
 
As far as I'm concerned Jim, national reciprocity of CCW permits should be a given. Of course when you request a 'national' acceptance of anything, you invite federal oversight of it.
 
Back
Top