"why would an LEO disarm a CCWer ..." AGAIN"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dangus
I still think you are nuts.
As a matter of fact, i think you're one of those people that someday will be shooting officers because "their life is worth les than mine".[/quote]

Misinterpret me all you want. You are being unfair with me and painting me out to be something I am not. Why don't you go through the history of my postings on this board, think about them and then try and form some sort of reasonable conclusion about who I am? If thats too much work don't bother slandering me thusly.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If an LEO wants my handgun in his possession while he is dealing with me, then so be it. I always cooperate fully with LEO's. I have no idea what might have happened five minutes before he stopped me. [/quote]

Well, you have a good point, but, I think it is conditional, and I think a lot of LEOs don't think it is, though certainly some do as well. I find it totally disrespectful when a LEO stops someone who has done nothing major wrong, who doesn't have a car that looks like the car of a known criminal, shows no anger, etc, and disarms them for the duration of the stop. It is insulting. There is supposed to be a concept of innocent till proven guilty, but out on the road LEOs have spent so long exercising the ability to declare someone guilty till proven innocent that many have forgotten this ideal. If a LEO sees you do something on the road, or even if they don't, they can stop you, give you a ticket, and legally you are guilty. You then have to go to court and fight a battle, usually a losing one, to prove you are innocent, or at least not as guilty as claimed. This sort of thinking I think only encourages treating people out on the road as criminals, disarming them, detaining the, etc, whilst doing some very minor enforcements of the law.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I never took an oath to "Protect and Serve" I don't know any officer that has. My commissioning oath also says nothing about the Constitution[/quote]

That's probably part of the problem. I think your department doesnt have the right oath. I know ours around here have an oath that is quite close to serve and protect, but it says nothing of the constitution. Despite that fact, they are still obligated by their employer to uphold the constitution of the state.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If I get a queasy feeling about a contact, you're surrendering that weapon. I don't care if you think I should suck it up and risk a bullet for your "rights". Until I'm 100% sure of your bonifides, you'll stand there unarmed. Normal people with a brain accept this, and will comply. I don't care if the idiots are offended. If you did not intend to abide by the agreement you signed when you got the permit in the first place, why even get the darn thing?[/quote]

This is part of the problem. You feel so damn scared that you have to bully people into surrendering their basic right to defend themselves. Even though LEOs have a higher mortality rate than the general population, their deaths from guns are extremely low, and a good share of those LEOs shot on duty are shot with their own sidearms. If someone genuinely has shown some sign of violent behavior, intoxication, or is believed to quite likely be the perpetrator of a crime happening prior to the stop, then yes, disarmament is completely fair and definitely in the best interests of everyone. There are some people who a LEO could stop, hand their gun to, and stand there disarmed and be completely safe. You'd be suprised how numerous such people are, you've talked with quite a lot of them on this very message board.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Looking back on it now, I can't see why anyone would think they have the right to remain armed even if a policeman in the course of his lawful duties asks to secure their weapons.[/quote]

How many people who actually would shoot a cop are going to be sober, willing to show their CCW, willing to admit to having a weapon, and acting quite reasonable? This is just like that damn idea of confiscating all guns. Sure most lawful owners would probably hand over their guns like good little sheeple, but would the criminals, hell no. They'd be happy for a gun ban, because they are already criminals, what does it matter to them, all that does is make their job easier. A criminal isn't all that likely to admit being armed during a traffic stop, a criminal isn't going to be forward about the fact that he has a gun, unless he is shooting at the LEO with it. Disarming the average joe during a stop is just an insult and a lack of faith in your community. If you show them no faith, how can you expect them to show you any?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Someone keeps saying that LEO's agree to throw their lives away when necessary. That's just not true. LEO's agree to RISK their lives when necessary, no more.[/quote]

Hey, I totally agree that LEOs don't agree to jump into a rain of bullets like some sort of kamakazi. I never ever said that. I said that a LEO should consider their life less valuable than the people they are meant to protect. That is part of playing the role of the protector, to be in harm's way. You say the word risk, while many LEOs are simply unwilling to do even that, even at the cost of relationships with their community, and being considered bullies.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The comparison to Samurai is way off the mark. Samurai were servants all right--their feudal lords owned them and their families. The smallest mistake was punishable by death, and I'm including mistakes like being defeated by superior forces in battle. Such things were also punishable by the obliteration of the entire family--women and children included. Besides, you forget that the Samurai were actually one of the worst examples of what you called the "gentleman" kind of protector/warrior. Samurai could and did kill "civilians" whenever they felt like it.[/quote]

No, my comparison was hardly incorrect in the manner you have described it, because you have misinterpretted me. A samurai rarely would EVER harm their master. In the case of the samurai, their master was a feudal lord, but with LEOs it is the people. The people should be the ultimate body to which any officer must answer and be held accountable, and frankly that is rarely the case. Many times the LEOs conduct their own investigations of each other, many times they are friends with the judges, and many times they try to intimidate juries with the concept of "we're the police so we're above justice". Granted, not all LEOs are like that, but enough are to be a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>First and foremost, the lives of Cops and military personell are NOT worth less than those of regular Joes. Foolhardy beliefs such as that lead to needless deaths; just go to DC and look at that black wall dead young men to see the outcome such immorality. Personally I feel that their lives are worth more than those who sit by and do nothing expecting the government to take care of them.[/quote]

Perhaps you misunderstand my application of the word "worth". I mean, these people's lives are in a sense of immediecy, worth much less than those of the average people, at least from their own perspective it should be such. From our perspective, if they put their value beneath ours, then we should treat them well, and hold them in the highest esteem. Good LEOs and good soldiers deserve our utmost praise and respect, but good soldiers and good LEOs would die for any one of you if you were an American who had done nothing wrong and was not hurting anyone. The warrior spirit is not a spirit for simply taking and destroying, the warrior spirit in it's greatest form is a spirit of giving and sacrifice. People who seek to walk that path should be treated as the heroes they are.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So tell me those that say LEO's are supposed to take the bullet, it's their job, is it your job? Or like them is it our duty as good citizens to simply step-in and render aid in whatever form is needed?[/quote]

I believe as a gun owner myself it is indeed my place to take a bullet just like any of the rest of them if it comes to that. I am armed, and I have the ability to kill, but I consider that a responsibility to the community as well. If I see a violent crime about to happen, or having just happened, and I can do something about it, I believe it is definitely my place to interfere, and I have taken training on how to do so. I would not mind one bit some basic "shoot don't shoot" info being passed out when someone gets a CCW.

I do believe it is the duty of everyone who is strong to protect those who are weak. I don't believe that the average citizen should be held liable if they see a violent crime and don't interfere, but they should face a huge social stigma. A community can punish in ways that a court system cannot. Law officers though, are given strength by law and by taining, they are given strength of arms, strength of numbers in many cases. This strength is largely drawn from a system that they serve, and that system belongs to the people of this country. It is their obligation to absolutely protect the people around them to their fullest capability, and to treath them with respect for being the source of their powers.

The allies treated Germany like a bad dog after WW1, and Germany became a monster, the allies treated Japan with respect, and Japan has brought back a great deal of honor to themselves and a strong economic partner to us. Trust is an element of that respect, and it is worth risking some things for.



------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
OK, I hear you Lawdog. I'm not going to mince words with the nice police officer anymore. Except to say to all in general... respect is a two edge feather or a sword. You can tickle folks with both but only one really cuts and hurts.

Jim
 
Speaking from the TX point of view, our CHL law states that th eofficer has a right to releive you of your weapon if they see fit. The law also states that you must comply with such a request. If one were to feel threatened by this, I'd suggest lobbying for a change in the law tha states that the officer must show probable cause to take your gun. Unlike searches, the law is pretty clear around here as to weather they can take your gun or not. Do I think the law is right, no Id ont. Do I think it is worth getting my panties in a bunch about it. No, not till there are some abuses. To date I have been treated professionally by most officers that have pulled me over. Fortunately I dont have a wealth of experience to draw on, but I am certain that the only reason I got a warning instead of a ticket was because the trooper saw my license as I was pulling my DL out of my wallet.

The original post asked the question of why LEOs do it, especially if its left to their discretion. The most logical answer is trust. They dont trust that you will not go ballistic when they issue the ticket or what not. They have either become victims of the "blood will flow in the streets", "guns are the cause of crime"... BS, are just plain scared or have a lack of experience in dealing with CHL holders and are being overcautious. The problem is that trust and respect are two way streets. You may argue that all I have is a piece of paper that gives me a privilage, but what do you have??? A certificate from the state, molded piece of plastic on your chest?? Every argument that has been offered to defend the concept of violating someone's rights is absurd and can be used to justify distrust of the officer in question. Not a soul on this list has argued that we should get in the face of the nearest officer and tell them to go suck an egg. What was presented was a forum for those doing the job to explain why doing so was justifiable or right? Unfortunately the only thing to hold water that has come up was because the law states that you can. Does this make it right?

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
I usually avoid posting to these threads also. They become emotional and are usually directly related to the poster’s life experiences concerning encounters with the subject matter.

There are cops in my family. I have cops for relatives. I have friends that are cops. I am by NO means a fan of rouge cops and I am fully prepared to deal with them. If a cop feels that his job is too dangerous, he had best look for another job.

The fact is that general population’s attitudes are reflected in the police. There are good cops and there are bad cops. I believe that the majority (for the time being) are good cops. Certainly when a “bad” cop has an incident, it is played up by the media, and that is what people tend to remember. (Where have we heard that one before?)

On the other paw, legal carriers of concealed weapons are also a reflection of the general population’s attitudes. The cop doesn’t know you from Charlie Manson. There will be well-mannered citizens and there will be not so well-mannered citizens.

The problem lies in neither party “knows” exactly what the intentions of the other are in an encounter. A little courtesy and respect, on BOTH sides, would go a long way for a peaceful encounter. Stupid words and/or an arrogant attitude, by either party, only causes the problem to escalate.

I have to laugh about the time a TDPS trooper was citing me for driving a little over the speed limit. I was legally packin’ and he didn’t seem to care too much about it. He was looking over the registration and inspection stickers, on my brand new truck, and noticed that I had a radar detector. He wrote, in large letters on the citation, RADAR DETECTOR. I asked him why he would write that on the ticket and he stated that “If you have a radar detector, you have a propensity to speed”. He clearly wanted to bias the judge (probably his brother-in-law). I told him that I owned a chainsaw also and did that make me have a propensity to become a chainsaw murderer? (Notice that I didn’t use the gun for an example.) He didn’t like that one bit because it blew his logic right out of the water, his face got red and the vein on his neck started to stick out (I detected a little dribble of tobacco juice leaking out of his lip). Time to go. He would have been better off acting professional and sticking to the facts. BTW a lawyer took care of the ticket with NSOMA. :cool:

Skyhawk
 
What ever happened to the good old referendum?(SP?) In Oregon The last of the referendum(SP?) States, (I think) Legislators draw up a law and then the people vote on it to decide whether it will go into effect or not. What happened to, "of the people, by the people and for the people?" Just a thought.

------------------
***Torpedo***
It's a good life if you can survive it!
 
I hate to bring this thread back to the top but I just read something that I think is topical and may ad some perspective.
There is no link to the story yet that I have found and the report is unsubstanuated as of now.
Earlier this evening a female Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper was shot in the back by a 72 year old man whom she had stopped for a seat belt violation.
Geez, he must have looked very "non threatening" when this "routine" traffic stop began! :mad:

------------------
Gunslinger
 
I think for better understanding it might be prudent to look at it from the opposite point of view. For some CCW to stop a suspicious vehicle or person on their property, with no one else around and not knowing what would happen... I certainly would be cautious. On the other hand you here all the time of some poor off duty cop getting handcuffed and given the third degreee until they finally figure out he is one of them. Being a little more polite and respectful on both sides wouldn't hurt. We are all from different states with different requirements for both CCW and LEO. One area has strict CCW requirements and some of those people see it as unjust to say it is just a piece of paper. Some LEOs have been around for awhile but what about those that have only a year? Without any animosity there is a lot of room for error on both sides. Now add to the equation that the opposition is a criminal or some cop with an attitude and I can see why sparks fly on this question. I'll be the first to say that I don't want anyone messing with my carry gun, but, the guy on the other end also doesn't want some 72 year old to shoot him. MWT

[This message has been edited by Powermwt (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
Quick aside ....

torpedo, that's called democracy (where the majority rules) - we live in a republic (representatives of the people) & there's just some things that can't be voted in, or out, no matter what the majority wants.

To topic (again),

I do have LEO background/experience & can relate to "that way of thinking" & some of the less than desireable attitudes (having seen it first-hand) of some LEOs, however most of my experience towards LEOs is very positive regarding most contacts (within & without the fold).

When being contacted by (or contacting) LEOs (& actually with anybody else I "get with") I'll be polite, respectful, etc. - something we should all do. (hey, it's that Southern Heritage ;) )

Very rarely, if ever, get pulled over & LEO contacts are usually in regards to TRT demos & associatives.

Not once has any LEO asked to disarmed me nor do I give them any reason for them to do so. (see polite & respecctful, etc. above)

In that context of being the regular good all 'round good guy that I am, I would take offense to being disarmed for, what I would take as no legitimate reason whatsoever.

And it is truly a shame that, even in such touchy topics as this, that we (some on both sides of the equation) can't refrain from being dragged down to that lowest common denominator. I seriously wonder at times re is it the annonymous aspects of these forums that allows us to so quickly "go off" or are some of us really like this in day-to-day personal contacts .... = yikes!

I would think that the annonimity of these forums would allow us to kinda "be outside of it all" and not take it so personally (or seriously). A great medium to explore how others think about certain issues without it really mattering one bit.

(/kumbaya=off)
 
OK You ask an officer for directions and he/she says:"Assume the position. I cant speak safely with you until I have determined that you are not armed and that you are no threat to me"
OR
"Mam, I stopped you to let you know that you are driving around with some gas station's nozzle sticking out of your fender. Please dismountr the vehicle so I can determine if you are armed and dangerous."
It seems like the movement is directed against LEGAL carriers, doesnt it?
Where will it end?


------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Ed Brunner:
No one is advocating reactions such as those for the types of contacts you describe..you are presenting extreme examples. As I have said before, the officer has the right BASED ON THE SITUATION...what is so hard to understand about that?
 
There is another element here that has not yet been discussed.
Right now most LEO's are in favor of CCW's. I go to a lot of police departments promoting the concealment holsters that Terri and I market. Some of the officers I talk with know that I am a retired police officer, others do not. I take the opportunity to ask about their feelings regarding people having CCW's. In over one hundred officers asked I have had one (Olatha, KS officer) state to me that he did not like the idea. All of the others have been very much in favor of it. We have even had one officer at a show in MO, where CCW is not allowed, stand at our table and advise "civilians" that he thought they should carry concealed in spite of not being alowed to by law. Our local Fraternal Order of Police campaigned for the propostion which would have allowed CCW in MO in 1999.
If the attitudes of some here were prevelant among all CCW holders how long do you think it would take before those same officers withdrew their support for people to have CCW's?


------------------
Gunslinger
 
Why should an officer ask me if i have a gun if I get pulled over for a traffic violation? And why should I need to answer him? (Yes, I'm asking for a real answer, I should not even have to speak during a stop, except for "please ticket me acordingly").

I hate to hear of cops asking questions like where are you going, whats in the trunk, etc.

This isn't Russia!!!!!!!

And technicaly, if I had drugs in the trunk or an ilegal gun on me, I have the right not to answer and incriminate myself.

seriously, if i look upstanding enough talk to me about my infraction, give me my ticket and let me go! Don't ask to search my car, dont ask me about weapons, drugs or what. I'm not a fan of being treated like I'm a threat nor as a potential criminal.

If I was speeding fine, ticket me. Stick to the offence at hand and let me go. Oh and if you see a kilo of coke on the back seat, Then you can treat my like a POS drug dealing scumbag, not before, OK?

I will pay you back with a friendly attitude and no B.S.

Now, for the record I have my CCW, don't do or avocate drugs, dress nice, own a nice car and I used to sell police equipment!

So my point is, if i'm speeding DON'T treat me like a criminal!!!!!!!! Give me some respect!!! You WILL get it back (respect)


Chris



[This message has been edited by Chris D (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
ChrisD:
"Looks "has nothing to do with criminal behavior. Criminals come in all shades, shapes, socio-economic classes, etc. We as LEO's cannot simply target people of a specific race, type, etc and sterotype THEM as potential crooks....that is what leads to complaints of racial profiling. There are many reasons WHY we ask the questions we do. I just put in a long post over in Coptalk at www.glocktalk.com on this subject, I'm gonna cut and paste my response there to here so I don't have to repeat myself further.
No, you don't have to say anything during a stop...no one has to incriminate themselves. Don't expect a break in return either, if thats the case.
Here's what I said "over there" on the subject of questions:
To answer your question about the reason for questions:
Overall, questions asked are intended to indicate Defendants awareness of the infraction(s) they are being stopped for. Any statement they make has the potential for being used in a trial. I generally use a standard group of questions, with additional questions depending on the answers I get.
Also, questioning is a good way to gauge the Defendants condition, I.E., DWI, DWI Drugs.
I indicated some of my standard questions in my first post.
I'll go over them briefly here:
1-"Do you know why you are being stopped?": This is pretty much self explainatory; if I stop someone for speeding and they answer "yeah, I was speeding" , I'll get into questions about their knowledge of the posted speed limit and their vehicle speed prior to being stopped.
2-Equipment violations and having checked their vehicle recently: With the exception of burnt out headlights, which is one of my pet peeves, I rarely write equipment tickets other than as the PC ticket if additional problems such as suspensions come up. Most of those getting the light ticket get a form which gets the ticket thrown out if its fixed within 24 hours. Otherwise, I've found people wont bother to fix the light. I'm asking this question to see if they've known about the problem for quite a long time; those who have and have ignored the problem are more likely to get a ticket.
3-Registered Owner: As I mentioned, you'd be surprised how many people do not know if they are the registered owner of their car. I've never figured out why; I know what vehicles are registered to me. The reason for this question is that drug mules and other criminal types commonly use a vehicle not registered to them, and quite often they cannot tell you who the car belongs to. Thats a warning to me that something might be unusual.
4-If they are not the registered owner , does the reg. owner know they are using the car? In NY at least, it is a ticketable offense to knowingly allow a driver with suspended / revoked priviledges to use your car. If the operator is suspended, I will use their admission about the registered owners knowledge of their use of the vehicle in any consideration in ticketing the owner for allowing the operator to use the car on a suspended/revoked status.
5- Emergency: This is another common sense question. It does two things: First, it tells me if there is in fact a problem at the time of the stop which would be a reason for the driver to be speeding (for instance).
I've had people tell me all sorts of things, and there have been a few bona fide emergencies,such as en route to the ER with injured people, etc.
Secondly, it prevents the defendant from arguing in court that they were breaking the law based on an emergency ..I'll simply reply in the supporting deposition that the Defendant failed to advise me of any emergency at the scene. It makes their excuse pretty lame at that point. I started including that question after such an incident/ case which went to trial.
The Defendant in NY is entitled to whats called a 710.30 notice, or intent to use Oral Admissions at Trial. I made up a triplicate form on NCR paper; when the ticket is made up, I fill out the 710.30 as well and give one copy to the Defendant at the scene, one copy to the court and I keep a copy with my copy of the ticket. When they pull away from the curb, they know exactly what statements might be used against them in court; my trial case load is extremely low, I might get one trial for every 200 tickets I write.
Hope this has answered your question about questions during stops.

[This message has been edited by tcsd1236 (edited August 04, 2000).]
 
I have gone on several ride alongs. I know several LEO's. We talk about law enforcement issues regularly. They do have a tough and often thankless job. But they are required to work within a framework of restriction we like to call "rights" of citizens. Operating within these higher standards is what separates the law abiding from the criminals. Their job may be easier if they didn't have to acknowledge people's rights, but society deems this an unacceptable trade-off. You can't arrest for someone because you think they are going to commit a crime. They have to actually do something in furtherance of a crime.

If a CCW permit is "just a piece of paper" then why is the Constitution and Declaration of Independance not "just pieces of paper." I assume a LEO gets "just a piece of paper" for completing training. A badge is "just a piece of metal." I still think disarming a legal CCW holder that has not made any overtly threatening action or just because you feel "queasy" is just a power trip. Exercising authority for the sake of doing so only breeds animosity and fuels the "us" v. "them" attitude. Being a bully will not get you respect.

Try switching places? Well us non-LEO folks do it every day. We face armed police and don't feel we have to disarm them. We also face legal CCW holders and don't feel compelled to disarm them. If I meet a CCW holder on the street, I don't know their mental state at that exact moment.

Now try switching places with us. How would you feel if a fellow officer disarmed you if you got pulled over? What if a judge said "remove that firearm in my courtroom"? What if anyone higher up on the authority chain forced you to disarm because they didn't trust you, felt queasy, or just wanted to pull a power trip and "put you in your place"? For example: someone of a higher rank, in a different jurisdiction, someone federal, or the secret service.

The LEO's I talked to, indicated they would be hugely offended. But the party disarming a LEO could argue they don't know you from anybody and you could be having a bad day.

Some permits are 25 years old. Well, I am sure some LEO's graduated the academy 25 years ago. Has their mental state changed? Has their psychological profile changed? Do LEO's ask everygody they stop if they have a firearm? It would seem ironic that the only people disarmed during a stop would be legal CCW holders. It would seem to be more prudent to disarm people who are carrying illegally.

In conclusion, I do respect LEO's. If an officer wanted to confiscate my gun for the duration of a stop, I would comply. However, only to avoid problems. I would still feel offended. The result would be more "us" v. "them".
 
Chris I do not mean this as a flame but how do you think crimes get solved? None of us are Sherlock Holmes. When an officer stops a person and ask where they are going, what is in their truck there may be a reason for it. If your house had recently been burglarized and the officer discovered your stolen guns as a result of asking these questions I doubt that you would be complaining.
I will be the first to admit that their are officers that abuse their authority or in some cases their perceived authority. However, by and large they are simply doing the best they can to do the job you are paying them for.
You see if it your belongings that are stolen it appears different. If it were your wife/girl friend/daughter/mother/sister that was raped you would not care that the officers asked question in their attempts to apprehend the perpitrator. When that officer ask questions he may very well be investigating something of that nature. To not ask questons would be a derilection of his duties that you are paying him for.
Many think that they do not need the police and the police do nothing for them. (Not you nor anyone on this thread has said that.) But how many rapes, robberies, burglaries, et. al. are prevented because an officver asked questions during a seemingly routine traffic stop that lead to the perp being in prison. The man sitting in prison for the next 20 years may have been looking to rape your wife in his next attack. (I am not directing that at you in particular.) But because an officer did his job that person is no longer in a position to rape anyone except maybe his cell mate.
But you say, "Not me. I'm an innocent, law abiding gun owner going about my lawful business". How do we as police officer determine that? We do so by asking questions. To suggest that officers not be allowed to do that is denying yourself of the very services that you are paying them for.
If you are not breaking the law is the minor inconvenience of being asked a few questions more important than protecting the community and possibly one of your loved ones from a criminal?

------------------
Gunslinger
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Earlier this evening a female Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper was shot in the back by a 72 year old man whom she had stopped for a seat belt violation.

Geez, he must have looked very "non threatening" when this "routine" traffic stop began! [/quote]

Wow, this is terrible. Maybe we should ban all guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunslinger:

Right now most LEO's are in favor of CCW's.[/quote]

Perhaps in your area. Not in mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
If the attitudes of some here were prevelant among all CCW holders how long do you think it would take before those same officers withdrew their support for people to have CCW's?[/quote]

So explain to me why i should care whether or not LEO support of CCW makes any difference? Personnaly, i don't care very much if Joe Badge is happy about my CCW. It's not up to him, it is (or rather should be) up to me.

If the attitudes of some here were prevelant amoung all CCW holders, we wouldn't be discussing the BATF, NFA, GCA'68, Brady Bill, et. al. They wouldn't exist.

If the attitudes of some here were prevelant amoung all gun owners, crime would be nearly non-existant.



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
So explain to me why i should care whether or not LEO support of CCW makes any difference? Personnaly, i don't care very much if Joe Badge is happy about my CCW. It's not up to him, it is (or rather should be) up to me.

Because if we (LEO's and non) wish to keep our RKBA we will need all of the unity and support we can muster. Why alienate an allie? Do you believe it is wise to create an enemy from a friend? The struggle is difficult enough without that.


------------------
Gunslinger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top