"LEOs v. citizens, Gun Rights"

This is a discussion on "LEOs v. citizens, Gun Rights" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Alabama............ "no person shall carry a pistol about his person on premises not his own or under his control;" I wonder if that means a ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: "LEOs v. citizens, Gun Rights"

  1. #16
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,276
    Alabama............
    "no
    person shall carry a pistol about his person on
    premises not his own or under his control;"

    I wonder if that means a REVOLVER is OK?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Why are Paramedics allowed to administer medical procedures and narcotics that other citizens are not? Why should there be special laws that apply to Paramedics that allow this? Shouldn't we, as Citizens, be allowed to perform medical procedures and administer controlled substances? Why the unfair disparity for Paramedics? Why are we, the non-Paramedics, deprived of this right? Are the lives of the people we might treat any less valuable than the lives of those persons a Paramedic might treat? Why do Parmedics have special rights and protections that Citizens don't?
    Gonzo
    PS - Yes, I'm a LEO.
    PPS - I am a strong supporter of the rights of citizens to carry firearms. I am a citizen first and a LEO second. I may not always be a LEO but I expect I will always be a citizen.
    PPPS - I work in a rural area and very often an armed citizen is my closest back-up.
    Last edited by TheGreatGonzo; July 17th, 2006 at 10:47 PM.
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by M1911
    Even if I could carry openly without attracting undo attention for the local LEOs, I would not. I don't want a perp to know I'm armed. I don't want to give up the element of surprise.
    Agreed.

    This is tome same as driving around in a car that has bumper stickers saying "Protectd by S&W" or "Owner is a shooter" and similar such placards in ones yard and front window of their home.

    Open carry and such is giving up the element of surprise which is half the battle not to mention showing exactly how long and large ones teeth & claws might be.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  5. #19
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    What gives them the right to open carry when other citizens do not have that right? Are there legal provisions in their applicable jurisdictions, or are they using the same state and federal constitutions that we are denied? Can we use this?
    Here, officers only open carry if they are in uniform or on duty. The rest of the time if they are carrying, they are carrying concealed.

    Various state statutes cover this and I imagine that they are all different from state to state.

    If one is carrying in civilian clothes, he must display the badge within 3 inches of his weapon. Otherwise, if carrying concealed, the badge and I.D. must be carried...and they are exempt from needing a CCW and exempt from any place that is resticted to a CCW holder. This is pretty specific in the law.

    "Undercover"means civilian clothes, concealed weapon while on duty.

    So if you wanto know why cops can carry openly, look up your state statutes that gives them the authority to do so...and understand that the States are all different, as what flys in one state may not in another.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #20
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    There's some very good comments above. You make it sound like most, if not all, LEOs are against the rights of law-abiding citizens owning/carrying concealed weapons. While there or quite a few police chiefs that feel that way, I have found most of the officers in the field support our rights. I challenge you or anyone else to prove otherwise. You will always find some LEOs that feel otherwise, but they are human and therefore how they feel about this will vary. Don't knock cops for this issue; knock your legislators if you disagree with the law. Chiefs are political appointments so we all know why they believe what they do.

    As far as paramedics carrying, I think it should be okay for you to just like me or anyone else. But that's just not what the way it currently is. Have you talked to your legislators? Backed a strong 2A candidate? If not, that is your best bet to get laws changed.....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  7. #21
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter
    Alabama............
    "no
    person shall carry a pistol about his person on
    premises not his own or under his control;"

    I wonder if that means a REVOLVER is OK?
    Just to answer in spite of the fact the question is a bit facetious, QK. In Section 13A-11-70 of the Code of Alabama the following appears: "(1) Pistol. Any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length." I guess if you have a revolver with a 13 inch barrel it is OK.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,134

    A compendium of replies, consisely boiled

    "In MI, if you are a police officer, correctional officer, or PI/PD (under MCL 338.21 to 338.851), you are not prohibited from carrying in the prohibited Pistol Free Zones..."

    Funny, same here in VA, but Dept. of Corrections prohibits off duty concealed carry without a permit for most Correctional Officers.

    "Why are Paramedics allowed to administer medical procedures and narcotics that other citizens are not? etc etc etc"

    Citizens don't have access to controlled medications, neither are medications a God given right under the Constitution.

    Not directed at you GreatGonzo, but I have noticed among some LEOs AND citizens, lip service to equality with citizens, yet there is a certain odor of superiority attached to the badge.

    "knock your legislators if you disagree with the law"

    Exactly

    I'm glad a few of you posted applicable code sections. This is what I am talking about. But the question remains, why can't citizens be trusted? I'm not looking for a reasoned response, just trying to provoke thought. What can we do to bring the disparity a little closer together? Apparently Vermont and Alaska don't have a problem with it.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  9. #23
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,276

    Pennsylvania

    In Allegheny County one firearm regulation is
    No Carry in the Court House.
    Naturally, when me & the wife had to go to the Court House.
    I did not carry.
    My plastic cell phone did trip the detector though.
    (the battery tripped it I guess)

    Inside the Court House I counted upward of 40 EMPTY Law Enforcement holsters strapped onto various Police Officers in uniform.
    I was stuck in a room for an hour with absolutely nothing to do but, look at various holsters in addition to a few pretty girls.
    Two were even Federal Officers in uniform.
    Every one of those LEOs could (for sure) be trusted but, Nobody is allowed to carry in the Court House & LEOs are not exempt from that law. Just FYI
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    "Why are Paramedics allowed to administer medical procedures and narcotics that other citizens are not? etc etc etc"

    Citizens don't have access to controlled medications, neither are medications a God given right under the Constitution.
    Why don't Citizens have access to controlled medication? Please show me in the Constitution where it is prohibited for the average citizen. Are we not to be trusted with them? Why are Paramedics allowed to have what the average citizen is not? After all, a Paramedic is not a Doctor. What makes a Paramedic so special and privileged that they have access to special privileges that I, as a citizen, do not? My access to medications are not guaranteed under the Constitution? Really? That reeks of classism. As for firearms being a "God given right". I admit that I am a devout Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Holy Scripture and the only true word of God. I also realize that there are many people who disagree with that. That being said, I cannot find any passage in my Bible that mentions firearms, let alone a promise from God that we should have them. So, that being said, from whence is the right to bear arms "God given"? I do, on the other hand, believe it is a Constitutional right put in place by the framers of that document and intended to be left that way, not fiddled with by future governments. It is a right that should be available to EVERY American Citizen who is subject to that Constitution. In as much as we are subject to the laws created by the Constitution, so should we be recepients of the benefits.

    Again, I ask: Why are Paramedics allowed certain privileges that the general populace is not? What difference does it make if I carry around a bunch of controlled substances, as long as I have no intent to harm anyone with them. And, even if I administer them, as long as I do it in good faith with the intent to save someone's life, should I not have that right? Should I not be granted the same protections under the law that a Paramedic would have under the same circumstances?
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,134
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatGonzo
    Why don't Citizens have access to controlled medication? Please show me in the Constitution where it is prohibited for the average citizen. Are we not to be trusted with them? Why are Paramedics allowed to have what the average citizen is not? After all, a Paramedic is not a Doctor. What makes a Paramedic so special and privileged that they have access to special privileges that I, as a citizen, do not? My access to medications are not guaranteed under the Constitution? Really? That reeks of classism. As for firearms being a "God given right". I admit that I am a devout Christian and I believe that the Bible is the Holy Scripture and the only true word of God. I also realize that there are many people who disagree with that. That being said, I cannot find any passage in my Bible that mentions firearms, let alone a promise from God that we should have them. So, that being said, from whence is the right to bear arms "God given"? I do, on the other hand, believe it is a Constitutional right put in place by the framers of that document and intended to be left that way, not fiddled with by future governments. It is a right that should be available to EVERY American Citizen who is subject to that Constitution. In as much as we are subject to the laws created by the Constitution, so should we be recepients of the benefits.

    Again, I ask: Why are Paramedics allowed certain privileges that the general populace is not? What difference does it make if I carry around a bunch of controlled substances, as long as I have no intent to harm anyone with them. And, even if I administer them, as long as I do it in good faith with the intent to save someone's life, should I not have that right? Should I not be granted the same protections under the law that a Paramedic would have under the same circumstances?
    Gonzo
    1. This post and forum are not about Paramedics or controlled medications.

    2. Discussing this takes away from the stated purpose of the thread.

    3. You are playing Devil's advocate, a role I associate with an attempt to undermine the topic. Thus I question your motives.

    4. That being said, I will answer your questions, but I think this has gone on long enough.

    As we all know, the Constitution is a framework for law. Not every law is contained in the Constitution. This is why we have codified law. The Supreme Court has ruled that law making bodies may codify certain restrictions to our rights. Think "yelling fire in a crowded theater" as a restriction of free speech. By the way, I must have missed the Constitutional amendment that gives you the right to carry and administer drugs.

    Paramedics do not have privileges. They work under a Physician's license, which carries more weight than a certification or permit. Paramedics are certified. They follow well established protocols. An off duty Paramedic is not a Paramedic. We don't carry drugs in our back pocket, they are locked up at work. More discussion on the differences between licenses, permits, and certifications are probably not relevant right now, just accept it.

    I do not care what kind of medications you carry around, but it takes a fair bit more than good faith to administer them. Depending on locale, Paramedics have over 20 controlled medications available to them. The administration of these medications requires knowledge not available to most lay-persons. Many of them can and will cause death if administered improperly (Yes I can already anticipate your argument than guns can do the same, save me).

    If you have no training in such matters, and feel that you may administer them in good faith, feel free to choose a medication that is available to Paramedics. If you cannot think of any, I will be happy to provide you with a few to pick from. Now discuss where you get your supplies, storage, indications, contraindications, side affects, methods of administration, therapeutic ranges, allergic reactions, concentrations, disposal of unused supply, infection control, aseptic technique, disease processes of the diagnosed disorder that you are attempting to correct, other treatments available, other disease processes that mimic those symptoms, medical privacy. Medications are only administered after a thorough exam, which includes the use of a stethoscope, cardiac monitor, pulse oximeter, etc. An extensive knowledge base is required. And these are just what has occured to me as I sit here. All these things and many more must be considered.

    Paramedics have no protections under the law. Really. Go ahead and tell me about the Good Samaritan Law. Nope. It does not protect me against a civil suit if I am grossly negligent. What is a good attorney going to allege? Bingo: gross negligence.

    God given rights. I subscribe to the belief, substantiated in scholarly review, that the Founding Fathers ratified the Bill of Rights as rights that are inalienable to citizens, as they are birthrights of God's children. You can argue that one all day, but in the end I will still believe what I believe.

    No their are no firearms in the Bible. That particular text concluded prior to their invention. There are, however, references to swords, which I believe are the era's equivalent choice of weaponry. Jesus himself condoned his disciple's carrying of swords. Further, he advised them to purchase swords. I could discuss this further, but there are ample references to Christian self defense on the internet.

    At least cops get discounts when they eat. Most establishments do not extend that courtesy to EMS. Even though it is considered corruption (actually there is another word for this which escapes me at present) for LEOs to accept such gratuities.

    I'm sure I can squeeze just as many words out of this keyboard about how difficult it is to use a firearm, but the bottom line is, you are comparing apples and oranges. We'd be better off using Driver's Licenses for comparison. In the end, I believe that using a firearm for self defense is a much more universally ability than administering drugs, and certainly the knowledge of application is simpler and more readily available. Are you saying that LEOs are imbued with special knowledge and skills that make them more competent to defens themselves? I remember reading that the hit/miss ratio of LEOs is abysmal, especially when compared to CCW holders. I have read that numerous LEOs have been killed.

    LEOs may have certain "enhancements" when it comes to armed self defense, but the basis for armed self defense lies with the citizens. Just be glad that you are not a Bobby in England, or a Police Officer employed by the Veteran's Administration, right here in the USA, that did not allow their officers to carry firearms for many years. Didn't the FBI not carry firearms initally?
    Last edited by paramedic70002; July 18th, 2006 at 05:54 PM. Reason: Need to add a comment I forgot, about the FBI
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  12. #26
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    I'm glad a few of you posted applicable code sections. This is what I am talking about. But the question remains, why can't citizens be trusted? I'm not looking for a reasoned response, just trying to provoke thought. What can we do to bring the disparity a little closer together? Apparently Vermont and Alaska don't have a problem with it.
    It'd be great if all of the states thought like Vermont and Alaska, but it just aint so.

    You would like to bring the "disparity a liitle closer together".

    What would you suggest ?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    1. This post and forum are not about Paramedics or controlled medications.
    I agree, but I believe the comparison begged discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    2. Discussing this takes away from the stated purpose of the thread.
    See above. :c)

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    3. You are playing Devil's advocate, a role I associate with an attempt to undermine the topic. Thus I question your motives.
    Nope, not playing the Devil's Advocate. Just responding with a like comparison which would play to your day to day experience. Indeed, I question YOUR motives in the posting the thread. Thus my response.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    4. That being said, I will answer your questions, but I think this has gone on long enough.

    As we all know, the Constitution is a framework for law. Not every law is contained in the Constitution. This is why we have codified law. The Supreme Court has ruled that law making bodies may codify certain restrictions to our rights. Think "yelling fire in a crowded theater" as a restriction of free speech. By the way, I must have missed the Constitutional amendment that gives you the right to carry and administer drugs.
    Indeed, because none exists. However, your argument is self defeating, when you so rightly point out that the Constitution is a framework. There is nothing in the Constitution that says I CAN'T carry them and administer them, however, it is covered in codified law. There are those who would argue the same about firearms. It is all about interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    Paramedics do not have privileges. They work under a Physician's license, which carries more weight than a certification or permit. Paramedics are certified. They follow well established protocols. An off duty Paramedic is not a Paramedic. We don't carry drugs in our back pocket, they are locked up at work. More discussion on the differences between licenses, permits, and certifications are probably not relevant right now, just accept it.
    Law Enforcement Officer are certified. They follow well established protocols. However, an off duty LEO is still a LEO and expected to act as such. Indeed, I hope you don't carry controlled substances in your back pocket when you are off-duty, but you do carry your certification and your skills in your back pocket.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    I do not care what kind of medications you carry around, but it takes a fair bit more than good faith to administer them. Depending on locale, Paramedics have over 20 controlled medications available to them. The administration of these medications requires knowledge not available to most lay-persons. Many of them can and will cause death if administered improperly (Yes I can already anticipate your argument than guns can do the same, save me).
    Yes, you are right...guns can do the same and the same applies. I would save you, but I'm not permitted to use the required medications.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    If you have no training in such matters, and feel that you may administer them in good faith, feel free to choose a medication that is available to Paramedics. If you cannot think of any, I will be happy to provide you with a few to pick from. Now discuss where you get your supplies, storage, indications, contraindications, side affects, methods of administration, therapeutic ranges, allergic reactions, concentrations, disposal of unused supply, infection control, aseptic technique, disease processes of the diagnosed disorder that you are attempting to correct, other treatments available, other disease processes that mimic those symptoms, medical privacy. Medications are only administered after a thorough exam, which includes the use of a stethoscope, cardiac monitor, pulse oximeter, etc. An extensive knowledge base is required. And these are just what has occured to me as I sit here. All these things and many more must be considered.
    I have no training in such matters and have no desire to carry or administer narcotics. For every side issue you mention above, as it relates to medications, I can name one that relates to firearms. As you point out, medications are only administered after a thorough exam. You don't have that luxury with a firearm. How thorough is your knowledge of deadly force case law? Are you required to undergo yearly training in it? If I don't pass it, my firearm is taken away. Are you required to qualify with every firearm you carry quarterly? I am. If I fail to qualify, my firearm is taken away. Are you required to undergo yearly "Use of Force"training? I am...if I don't, my firearm gets taken away. To my knowledge, none of these requirements exist for any state CCW holders. Yet they exist for many, if not most, LEO's.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    Paramedics have no protections under the law. Really. Go ahead and tell me about the Good Samaritan Law. Nope. It does not protect me against a civil suit if I am grossly negligent. What is a good attorney going to allege? Bingo: gross negligence.
    Hate to tell you, but no such privileges exist for us either. Do you think that the fact we are legally allowed to carry a firearm in places that you are not give us some sort of liability protection in a shooting? Nope. Really. Go ahead and tell me about the Good Samaritan Law. It does not protect me against a civil suit if I am grossly negligent. What is a good attorney going to allege? Well, you get the idea...

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    God given rights...MAJOR SNIP...I could discuss this further, but there are ample references to Christian self defense on the internet.
    I agree. Could be debated all day. For every reference you can find in the Bible that supports it, an anti can find a reference against it. Personally, I consider it a right granted by the Constitution, not by God. He granted me much more important things.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    At least cops get discounts when they eat. Most establishments do not extend that courtesy to EMS. Even though it is considered corruption (actually there is another word for this which escapes me at present) for LEOs to accept such gratuities.
    Where I am at, EMT's and Firefighters receive the same discount that LEO's do. I guess they must all be corrupt as well. Funny how you managed to work "corruption" in when earlier you argued for "relevance". Again, it makes me question your motives.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    I'm sure I can squeeze just as many words out of this keyboard about how difficult it is to use a firearm, but the bottom line is, you are comparing apples and oranges. We'd be better off using Driver's Licenses for comparison. In the end, I believe that using a firearm for self defense is a much more universally ability than administering drugs, and certainly the knowledge of application is simpler and more readily available. Are you saying that LEOs are imbued with special knowledge and skills that make them more competent to defens themselves? I remember reading that the hit/miss ratio of LEOs is abysmal, especially when compared to CCW holders. I have read that numerous LEOs have been killed.
    No more an apples to oranges comparison than the duties and responsibilities of a LEO to that of an armed citizen. LEO's are certainly not imbued (I looked it up so I know what it means) with special knowledge and skills. However, they do go through a training academy and are required, at a minimum, to qualify with their firearms yearly. For most, quarterly. To my knowledge, no states require that for CCW holders. I would not doubt that the hit ratio of LEOs vs. CCW holders is mightily skewed. But, to quote you...apples and oranges. Compare the numbers of LEO shootings vs. the numbers of CCW shootings, as well as the circumstances surrounding the shootings and there are no similarities at all. It is sort of like comparing a soldier's hit ratio in combat to either of the above. Different animals. And, to be certain, a number of LEO's have been killed. Tragically, CCW holders have been killed and crippled as well. Again, take a look at the percentages, not the basic numbers. They simply are not applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002
    LEOs may have certain "enhancements" when it comes to armed self defense, but the basis for armed self defense lies with the citizens. Just be glad that you are not a Bobby in England, or a Police Officer employed by the Veteran's Administration, right here in the USA, that did not allow their officers to carry firearms for many years. Didn't the FBI not carry firearms initally?
    I'm certainly glad the VA cops were finally armed. Should have happened a long time ago. And, yes, the FBI did not originally carry firearms. They did not receive that right until after a fatal shootout.

    This is what it boils down to. I disagree with your original premise. You state in your opening post, "It is generally agreed that LEOs carry sidearms for the same reason the rest of us do, self defense.". That is NOT generally agreed. LEO's carry firearms to defend themselves AND the general public. While the Supreme Court has held that there is no absolute legal responsibility for the police to defend individual members of the public, there is certainly an expectation that they do so. Most state CCW laws are very specific in what they allow the carrier to use the firearm for: defense of themselves only. Not to intervene in crimes or to defend others. I'm quite sure there are some exceptions, but I would be willing to be that this is the general consensus. If you, a CCW holder, are standing in a 7-11 and Joe Scmucko walks in and holds up the clerk, you are under no obligation to act. In fact, many states will jack you up if you do. On the other hand, if a uniformed Police Officer is standing there and takes no action, although he may not criminally liable, he will most certainly be held accountable by his department and most likely sued if his failure to intervene results in loss to the store, or, worse, injury to the clerk or civilians. The responsibilities are different, just as the responsibilities (and training and experience and liability) are different for Paramedics and civilians.

    To be certain, most cops are average shots, at best. I know...I am Firearms Instructor and I have to see the results. Many permit holders take their pistol craft much more seriously and make a point to get as much training as they can. But, to be certain, not all of them do. Just as there are cops who shoot their gun once a year and are happy if they barely qualify, there are CCW permit holders who NEVER have to qualify, simply get their permit, load their gun, and carry it every day without every having fired a round.

    I don't post very much on the board. However, your thread really touched a nerve. On this board, or any other firearms board, I have YET to see a thread started by a LEO where the subject matter is something along the lines of "CCW is a bad idea and I don't think civilians should be able to carry guns". If you are aware of one, please provide a link. I'm not talking about responses to threads such as yours. I'm talking about a self initiated thread, such as yours. I often hear complaints about "us vs. them", but it seemed to me that your initial thread reeked of just that..."us vs. them". But it was solely initiated by you, not in response to some elitist remark by a LEO. Perhaps the problem does not always lie with the LEO?

    The vast majority of LEO's who participate in these gun boards are firearms enthusiasts. I would venture a guess that the vast majority also favor private ownership and carry by citizens. I certainly do. As far as I'm concerned, Vermont has it down to a "t". Every state should follow suit. But then, as supporters of EVERYONE'S right to carry, we read posts about how we are "elitists" and how we engender an "us vs. them" attitude. Have you ever considered that the attitude works both ways? In my mind, and I certainly acknowledge that is strictly MY interpretation, your initial post seemed far more confrontational and hostile than any thread I have ever read on this board started by a LEO. Hence...my ridiculously long response. I believe in everyone's right to defend themselves. However, I don't' believe that I have to question, or even worse, attack someone else's rights, just to suit my own agenda. I believe that I, as a law enforcement officer, have a right to carry a firearm at all times. I don't feel, however, that I have to denigrate or endanger a citizen's right to do the same, just to justify my rights. That very activity is just the sort of thing that causes the "us vs. them" problem. Does it exist? Most certainly! Do many cops promote it? Most certainly!! Do many civilians promote it also? You betcha!

    Now, much to everyone's relief I'm certain, I'm done. I won't derail the thread any further or intervene in your discussion and responses in a "debate" mode. I will try to contribute like a sane person. Moderators, I'm sorry if I overstepped my bounds and threw the thread off track. I'll take whatever lashes I have coming.
    Gonzo
    Last edited by TheGreatGonzo; July 18th, 2006 at 07:29 PM.
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns
    It'd be great if all of the states thought like Vermont and Alaska, but it just aint so.

    You would like to bring the "disparity a liitle closer together".

    What would you suggest ?
    Perhaps if we were able to show the success in Vermont and Alaska in a brighter light, it might help. The recent example of a armed citizen saving a LEO in Alaska is just the sort of example that should be played up to state legislatures in other states. Most states would KILL to have a crime rate as low as Vermont. Primarily, you are going to have to convince Police Chiefs and Sheriffs to get onboard (not the line officers). The problem with that is that most of them are politicians. They will go whatever direction that the local/county/state politicians go. Another major problem are police unions. Like most unions, they tend to support liberal politicians, even at the cost of the line officers they are supposed to be "supporting". Police unions are not common in the south, but they were very powerful when I was working in the northeast. Most line officers are very receptive to armed citizens. I'm sure there are exeptions in exceptionally liberal cities like San Francisco, etc. Convincing the Chiefs and Sheriffs is going to be the big challenge. Politicians hate taking any kind of stand that puts their balls on the chopping block.
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  15. #29
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    Primarily, you are going to have to convince Police Chiefs and Sheriffs to get onboard (not the line officers). The problem with that is that most of them are politicians. They will go whatever direction that the local/county/state politicians go.
    Is that even possible ?

    My Sheriff is very progun and active in the CCW process and most of the Sheriffs in the surrounding countys are progun as are the police chiefs...but that is here in Arkansas. I have no illusion that the same would be applicable in Illinois or California. Even some of the states such as Missouri that passed CCW law a couple of years ago still have openly hostile city councils in the big citys.

    And the Unions...are quite another story. Even the unions here seem to support the sorriest excuses for human beings ever to hold office, and they are usually the most prosocialist,antigun,progay,antifamily scumsucking bottom dwelling pansies that ever set foot on the earth.
    Expecting them to support ANY common sense measure would be a serious stretch of the imagination.

    Most line officers are very receptive to armed citizens.
    Pretty much my observation too. Its a pity that many folks just assume all of them to be antigun because the news media loves to capitalize on that kind of story.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #30
    Member Array distortion9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    111
    Not even going to bother with this one. All I'll say is....

    There is a double standard when it comes to Police Officers and it makes me sick to my stomach.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Should LEOs disarm you when they perform a "non-felony traffic stop"?
    By cagueits in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2010, 09:19 PM
  2. Should LEOs disarm you during a non-violent misdemeanor or a "civil penalty" stop?
    By cagueits in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 12:04 AM
  3. Mayor says to LEOs: "No more car or foot chases"
    By paramedic70002 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2009, 01:25 PM
  4. "Issue isn't gun rights" -- "right for churches to set their own rules"
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: February 15th, 2009, 11:36 AM
  5. Should a "felony" really cost someone their "rights?"
    By bobernet in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: June 28th, 2007, 09:04 AM

Search tags for this page

do leo's have more firearm rights than a civilian
,
do leos have special rights?
,
firearms rights and leo
,

is the self defense law the same as for a non leo citizen

,

leo's gun

,
paramedics gun privileges
,
virginia leos firearms exemptions
,
why do leo have more gun rights than citizens
,
why do leos get preferential gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.