Retired LEO carry in NYS

[mulle46]

Just mentioning "Blue Brotherhood" bothers me and so does the idea that if you are a retired LEO, it somehow gives you some kind of "right" to CC without, in many instances, the responsibility to requalify at some age plateau or medical condition plateau (this goes for non-LEOs, as well). Anyone, retired LEO or not, who has a CCWP and is physically unable or limited in the use of their firearm should be required to requalify or at least have the common sense to know that CC is over. Just what I need is to be somewhere and have an 80 year old or debilitated retired LEO present his firearm and start banging away in what may be a very good shoot circumstance but ends up injuring or killing others. As for "Blue Brotherhood"---I find that to be an inexcusable and outrageous comment---once you are retired you are no more and no less than anyone else and getting a pass for whatever reason is downright wrong.

under hr 218, retired LEO do have to qualify under the same guidelines of the department they retired from.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[F350]

What really ticks me off is that after 30+ plus years of wearig a badge, I have to go out and PAY for a service that I am entitled to. Probabably every other state takes care of its retired guys. Not NYS.

Really sucks being a plain 'ole CIVILIAN don't it?????

Just a guess but were you the kind of cop that would bust a hard working guy with a family for having a little protection under the seat of his truck as he went to work and back through a city where you couldn't protect him???? Ya, it's the law.

[kelcarry]

One wonders... do you feel the same way about service men and women... I mean after they do their bit protecting our rights, and all... what thanks are due? You did it, it's over... thanks and all that... now, go get a job, would ya?

I don't like all cops... don't get me wrong... Prolly don't like all firemen either. But, those that choose to do the work, have (and/or at the very least, been willing to) sacrificed their well being for mine. I respect that. I don't like that retired LEOs can carry a gun in places and states we cannot.

But, at least they can. And enough of "serve and protect" over a career might just rub off enough on them that they actually save an innocent who would not be saved because they were not allowed to be armed when the retired LEO was.

But then, maybe this guy's just like the rest of the 47% of Americans who "feel entitled." I don't think so... he earned it.

I just love it when your eyes are so full of bile that you cannot read what I wrote. If you are in no condition to be CC, whether you be a retired LEO, former military, or just a citizen, you have no business CC. Having a law on the books that does not make this distinction is ridiculous and dangerous. Does that make you feel better? When the thread writer throws out that "Blue Line" stuff, it gets me mad---it insinuates a mindless disregard for doing the right thing and the responsible thing.

[kelcarry]

under hr 218, retired LEO do have to qualify under the same guidelines of the department they retired from.

That is all I am asking for and it should be that way for everyone who has a CCWP. The idea that age or mental stability or whatever should not play into a decision because the law is missing basic common sense and that Blue Line is somehow sacred is ridiculous.

[rottkeeper]

I just love it when your eyes are so full of bile that you cannot read what I wrote. If you are in no condition to be CC, whether you be a retired LEO, former military, or just a citizen, you have no business CC. Having a law on the books that does not make this distinction is ridiculous and dangerous. Does that make you feel better? When the thread writer throws out that "Blue Line" stuff, it gets me mad---it insinuates a mindless disregard for doing the right thing and the responsible thing.

So who decides if you qualify? More importantly, why do we have to qualify to exercise our rights?

[oakchas]

You realize how insane that bolded statement was/is, right? How it does include veterans, people in the military, the elderly, anyone collecting social security/medicare/whatever? It's just a really, really dumb statement to make.

The bolded statement was a sarcastic quote of a statement made by one of our presidential candidates. And yes, he included those groups, BTW (it's the only way he could come up with that large a number).

I just love it when your eyes are so full of bile that you cannot read what I wrote. If you are in no condition to be CC, whether you be a retired LEO, former military, or just a citizen, you have no business CC. Having a law on the books that does not make this distinction is ridiculous and dangerous. Does that make you feel better? When the thread writer throws out that "Blue Line" stuff, it gets me mad---it insinuates a mindless disregard for doing the right thing and the responsible thing.

No need to throw out the Blue Line/Blue Brotherhood at all... You see, there's nothing in this statement that has any requisites:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In fact, one does not even have to be a citizen to exercise that right... and can be blind, halt, lame, deaf, and mute.

That is all I am asking for and it should be that way for everyone who has a CCWP. The idea that age or mental stability or whatever should not play into a decision because the law is missing basic common sense and that Blue Line is somehow sacred is ridiculous.

Arizona has no restrictions, other than the federal to who may purchase or carry a firearm.

It is not the "blue line" that is sacred, it is the RIGHT... PERIOD!

[kelcarry]

So who decides if you qualify? More importantly, why do we have to qualify to exercise our rights?

Are you truly of sound mind? So if you are a bit unsound of mind but are that wonderful retired LEO or military man or even a regular citizen and you go out and kill a few people because you see the commies and zombies coming--that's OK because you have "rights". But this is no problem with you--you were just exercising your rights and no one is really qualified to make a determination about you. It scares me to think that you actually believe your poppycock. C'mon now----you mean their is no limit to who can CC once they have been an LEO or military or, for that matter, just a citizen---so your 2A rights trump senility--you are nuts if you believe that. Look--I do not have the answer as to "who decides" but I do have an answer if your conclusion is "let um have their guns"---ridiculous and irresponsible.

[CaveJohnson]

The bolded statement was a sarcastic quote of a statement made by one of our presidential candidates. And yes, he included those groups, BTW (it's the only way he could come up with that large a number).

Ah, thought you were saying it seriously. I know he said it, and that's why I had the big *** moment because I can't believe people buy that nonsense.

[oakchas]

Are you truly of sound mind? So if you are a bit unsound of mind but are that wonderful retired LEO or military man or even a regular citizen and you go out and kill a few people because you see the commies and zombies coming--that's OK because you have "rights". But this is no problem with you--you were just exercising your rights and no one is really qualified to make a determination about you. It scares me to think that you actually believe your poppycock. C'mon now----you mean their is no limit to who can CC once they have been an LEO or military or, for that matter, just a citizen---so your 2A rights trump senility--you are nuts if you believe that. Look--I do not have the answer as to "who decides" but I do have an answer if your conclusion is "let um have their guns"---ridiculous and irresponsible.

So, what else as regards guns is reasonable and "responsible?"
6 round capacity? Why not? How about 20-20 vision maybe?

List your requirements here, let us know how you would restrict the right...

[First Sgt]

mmmmm......Pass the popcorn please, this is gonna be better than watching the election coverage....

[rottkeeper]

Are you truly of sound mind? So if you are a bit unsound of mind but are that wonderful retired LEO or military man or even a regular citizen and you go out and kill a few people because you see the commies and zombies coming--that's OK because you have "rights". But this is no problem with you--you were just exercising your rights and no one is really qualified to make a determination about you. It scares me to think that you actually believe your poppycock. C'mon now----you mean their is no limit to who can CC once they have been an LEO or military or, for that matter, just a citizen---so your 2A rights trump senility--you are nuts if you believe that. Look--I do not have the answer as to "who decides" but I do have an answer if your conclusion is "let um have their guns"---ridiculous and irresponsible.

You a seem little too bent out of shape for a constructive discussion, so I'm out, before I digress to the above.

[oakchas]

Here's a great list of basic limitations:

You must have at least 20/40 near and far vision in each eye (tested separately). If you require glasses or contacts to meet this requirement, you must wear these at all times while carrying a firearm. You must not be color-blind and you must not have any conditions that interfere with your sight or are likely to interfere with your sight in the future.

Ears, Nose, Throat and Balance

Your hearing must be good enough to hear a person speaking in a normal conversational tone six feet behind you. You must not have any ear, nose, throat or mouth problems that are likely to interfere with speech communication or cause vertigo.


Mental Health and Substance Abuse

You must not have any mental condition that gives you hallucinations or causes "grossly bizarre" behavior. You must have no history of substance dependence or must demonstrate that you have totally abstained from using the substance in question for the past two years. Substances include nearly any potentially addictive or mind-altering chemical (including alcohol) except for tobacco and caffeine.

Seizures and Heart Disease

You must not suffer from epilepsy or any other seizure disorder which could impair your safe use of a firearm. You will be disqualified for many serious heart diseases, including (but not limited to) angina pectoris, myocardial infarction or other "coronary heart disease that has required treatment." A permanently implanted cardiac pacemaker will also disqualify you, as will a replacement valve or transplanted heart.

Diabetes and General Condition

If you have diabetes that must be controlled using insulin or similar product, you will be disqualified. In general, to become a weapons permit holder you must not have any condition which could cause you to suddenly lose consciousness, become disoriented or otherwise lose your ability to handle a firearm. These requirements are not exhaustive, and some conditions may not permanently disqualify you from carrying a weapon if you are otherwise qualified (in some cases, the examining doctor may defer judgment on a condition to a higher authority).

maybe we could add to these?

[kb2wji]

mmmmm......Pass the popcorn please, this is gonna be better than watching the election coverage....

Well that wont be hard. Crashing your new Ferrari is better than watching the election coverage.

[boscobeans]

Here's the problem, there is no statute in any New York State law that mandates that a law enforcement agency qualify its retired officers. Because it is not required, they won't do it. That being said, can I still carry under HR 218? It seems to me that I should be able to, after all , it's the States fault that they don't. My options are:

1. Get a carry permit from Utah or Florida.

2. Carry anyway, and if an Officer questions me, hope that he has common sense and respects the Blue Brotherhood.

What do you think?

Permit from any other State is no good in NY.

Western NY ?? Depending on the county it should be no problem for you to apply and get a permit. ?

Just wondering.

bosco

[royal barnes]

I'm not going to get into the argument whether retired officers should have the right to carry where others cannot but I'm not aware of any state CCW permit that requires yearly qualification. LEOSA requires qualification by your department's regular course. For me, in N.C., it would mean a 50 round course ranging from 3 to 25 yards, both day and night. If this were the case for all CCW permits, many would not apply and many who did would not be able to qualify. If a retired LEO covered under this bill fails to requalify due to age, infirmity, etc. his permit is not renewed. Not the case with standard CCW permits anywhere in this country.