New LEO carry question - Page 3
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: New LEO carry question

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gondor
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Regardless, refer back to my original point:


    To help you out, I bold faced it.
    Which goes back to my original point. It ain't SDD's fault that law got passed and he'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. So, why ride him over it?
    In an emergency individuals do not rise to the occasion, they fall to the level of their MASTERED training
    Barrett Tillman

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    Ed

    Avg Joe hasn't had any training whatsoever and if he owns a gun fires it maybe annually

    I am a firm believer in 2nd amendment etc.

    I'm just saying you can see where the logic came in for passing the law. I'm hopeful it could lead to a broader national carry law at some point

    FYI other than just law enforcement training I also shot IPSC for 6 years and have a military background......I'm pretty good with a firearm Far better than avg Joe
    There is no logic in prescribing one law for the subjects and another for the government officials. A law that allows government officials to have one set of rules where as the rest of society has another, is the mark of tyranny. This is true by allowing one standard to LE, and one for everyone else... this is also true by forcing the American public to be part of the ACA whereas the legislators get their own healthcare package. It's not right in either arena and only serves to divide the populace from the government, when this nation was built on the populace being the government.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,676
    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    Navy Blues

    I'm firm believer in national carry permit, though doubt will ever see one.
    This gives us a clue as to just how knowledgeable you are about the Constitution and the rights it acknowledges as being inherent in every person who is born. The federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from controlling the exercise of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and that applies to both individual citizens and the states in which they reside, with very limited exceptions contemplated by the Framers. A "national carry permit" (more commonly referred to as "national reciprocity") that originates from the .fedgov is a violation by the federal government of the prohibitions and limitations of authority placed upon it by the Constitution.

    To say that you're for federal legislation that controls any aspect of the rights contemplated by the Framers in the 2nd Amendment is no different to me than saying that you're all for forcing a contact into having their person or car searched even though you have no probable cause. It's also no different to me than saying out loud that you don't even understand the oath you took to protect and defend the Constitution. In fact, it screams that as though you actually did say it out loud.

    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    That said the intention of the law passed was to allow certified law enforcement to have option to carry in all jurisdictions both for personal protection (do the job long enough and someone has it out for you)
    Live long enough and someone has it out for you. Like I said first, special treatment. To think that cops should be afforded extra rights when their oath is only about protecting the citizens' rights that they supposedly "serve" has no logical connection to the Constitution whatsoever. It's a disgusting and blatant overreach of federal authority.

    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    and to have the possibility of a LEO armed and available to protect all citizens should a felony be committed in their presence.
    Yeah? How about you show us in the law where it says that? It does nothing but put government employees' (cops') rights above those of the citizens they're sworn to protect the rights of. And it tramples on states' rights to boot. The very description of the law makes that very clear:

    SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS
    PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.


    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    Not all of us are equally trained but on average it's better than the avg Joe and the vetting process is fairly extensive in most jurisdictions
    Assuming this is true, what does it have to do with the 2nd Amendment? Where is there a training requirement for The People to be trained outside of their militia duties? You do realize that cops are not the militia, and that the Supreme Court has (finally) determined that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right separate and apart from the militia clause, right? Neither your or my level of training has any bearing whatsoever on the right that the 2A protects. This is something that should be at the forefront of your training, to make sure that all government oath-takers understand what their oath actually means.

    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    That said I am still not 100% comfortable with protecting me fully to carry in certain states
    Why not? You've got the whole weight of the federal government giving you Carte Blanc to violate state and local laws to your heart's content. What possible discomfort could you have with that in mind? I mean, it's not like you're just an average Joe with a CWP who gets contacted by cops for talking to the wrong person on the side of the road and then gets threatened with execution by the cops and arrested. No, you've got a "special" piece of paper that gives you more rights than the citizens you're sworn to protect the rights of! Your "discomfort" does nothing to decrease my disgust over the federal government forcing states and citizens to take a back seat to government employees' "rights."

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    I think the mentality that the average Joe has no training is pathetic. Is that how police feel about the average citizen? Does this mentality go beyond just firearms training?

    All rhetorical...so many commandos.

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    ďOne of the illusions of life is that the present hour is not the critical, decisive one.Ē Ė Ralph Waldo Emerson

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Eidolon View Post
    That is going to start a major pissing contest
    At the very least
    Bad Guys of the world beware the next time you think about jumping on a old guy, because its a fair bet he's to old to fight and probably to fat to run, but can put one in your eye at 50ft with his weak hand

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Gondor
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    I think the mentality that the average Joe has no training is pathetic. Is that how police feel about the average citizen? Does this mentality go beyond just firearms training?

    All rhetorical...so many commandos.

    Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
    I know this is going to piss some folks off but if you look at it objectively Iím willing to bet the OP is right.

    I think the statistics are that only 1% or so of gun owners even have a carry permit and even from that group there are a bunch that only carry when they think they need it or only have it so that they don't have to do a BGC. Extrapolating just from that Iíd be willing to bet that the average gun owner probably only takes his/her gun out of the house to go to the range and probably doesnít even do that very often.

    Then letís look at ďtrainingĒ I donít have hard facts Iím just putting this forth as speculation but Iíd be willing to bet that the average gun owner went through BRM in the service (and BTW only 1% or so of Americans even join the military) and that was the extent of his/ her ďtrainingĒ. Iím not knocking BRM, weíve won a couple of wars with soldiers who didnít have any more training than BRM but it is Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Learning how to fire an M16 from a foxhole supported firing position doesnít help me with a Glock.

    Again, Iím speculating but Iíd bet that the people that participate here have more training than the average gun owner.

    So if you take the OP at face value, yeah Iím willing to concede that the average cop has more training than the average gun owner.
    In an emergency individuals do not rise to the occasion, they fall to the level of their MASTERED training
    Barrett Tillman

  9. Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    That said the intention of the law passed was to allow certified law enforcement to have option to carry in all jurisdictions both for personal protection (do the job long enough and someone has it out for you) and to have the possibility of a LEO armed and available to protect all citizens should a felony be committed in their presence.
    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    I'm just saying you can see where the logic came in for passing the law.
    I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic.

    1. I'm willing to bet you a paycheck that statitstics will show that the average Joe Citizen has a much higher chance of being the victim of the random criminal attack - especially away from home, such as a tourist - than a LEO does of being the target of a specific criminal out for revenge, especially outside of that LEO's home jurisdiction. So it would seem to me that outside the LEO's normal jurisdiction I have just as much need for self protection as the off duty LEO does. Therefore, there is no real logic behind the argument that a LEO has more need to carry outside their jurisdiction where average Joe Citizen is not allowed to due to self protection.

    2. Protect the public from felonies being committed in the LEO's presence? So, according to that "logic", I am supposed to rely upon there being a LEO around to see the crime being committed against me, and then hope that LEO is willing to protect me when they have no legal obligation to do so? In fact, the justice system is stacked against them if they are willing to defend me, especially if that LEO is off-duty outside their normal jurisdiction. Want to stop the felonies.... how about allowing the potential victims to be armed to stop the felonies being committed against them. That would be logical.

    I'm not against you, superdutydave - I know you would rather that we all were able to carry to protect ourselves with very few limitations (and my opinion is with no government imposed limititations on locations). But I can't agree with you that there is a logical basis for the LEO Safety Act.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by superdutydave View Post
    Ed

    Avg Joe hasn't had any training whatsoever and if he owns a gun fires it maybe annually

    I am a firm believer in 2nd amendment etc.

    I'm just saying you can see where the logic came in for passing the law. I'm hopeful it could lead to a broader national carry law at some point

    FYI other than just law enforcement training I also shot IPSC for 6 years and have a military background......I'm pretty good with a firearm Far better than avg Joe
    Far better than the Average Joe, huh? Sounds like you just have a big ego and are maybe a bit too full of yourself? Yeah, PERFECT qualities in a LEO! </end sarcasm>
    ďAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.Ē -Benjamin Franklin

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I don't blame superdutydave for taking advantage of whatever he can. What I said was that I find it repulsive that the government feels it is more important for a deputy from some rural county in GA to be able to defend themselves in New York than it is for me to be able to protect my children at the same location; and at the same time that same government says that the deputy has no responsiblity or duty to provide protection for the citizen.
    I'd bet it's not that they think he's more "important," but that he's somehow more capable or trustworthy whereas us average people are incompetent or dangerous (possible bad guys - cause, you know, no cops ever go bad due to PTSD or whatever). Whatever it is, all are equally repugnant.
    Modern Whig
    "Government is not meant to burden Liberty but rather to secure it." -T.J. O'Hara

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast