Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 142 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Second Amendment -- Or Second-Class Citizens?

This:
. . . the state’s different treatment of two groups of citizens (retired peace officers and others who have concealed carry permits) is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Considering this will be heard by the 9th circuit, I don't expect a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. But, if it is then appealed to the Supreme Court, and they decide to hear it, who knows.

California lawmakers know that the only way they will get support from the police (unions) for their efforts to force people back to flintlock firearms is to write in exceptions for LEOs. Exceptions for active LEOs for what they can do or for what types of weapons they may use (not personally own) are arguably more reasonable. But, exceptions for retired LEOs or for current LEOs in what they can personally own creates a class of people that have "more rights". If this was to get a favorable ruling in the SCOTUS it would make it much harder to get support for many of the more egregious gun control laws.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,161 Posts
The two classes of gun owners (commoners vs. law enforcement) has long been a pet peeve of mine, everyone who has a permit should be treated the same no matter what class they are.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,633 Posts
Second Amendment -- Or Second-Class Citizens?

This:


Considering this will be heard by the 9th circuit, I don't expect a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. But, if it is then appealed to the Supreme Court, and they decide to hear it, who knows.

California lawmakers know that the only way they will get support from the police (unions) for their efforts to force people back to flintlock firearms is to write in exceptions for LEOs. Exceptions for active LEOs for what they can do or for what types of weapons they may use (not personally own) are arguably more reasonable. But, exceptions for retired LEOs or for current LEOs in what they can personally own creates a class of people that have "more rights". If this was to get a favorable ruling in the SCOTUS it would make it much harder to get support for many of the more egregious gun control laws.
Leo's don't need a permit to carry while working, they can carry on the badge. If you can't carry on the badge, I guess there's the idea behind two classes of people [ leo and citizens ]. But don't forget, leo's are civilians as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,816 Posts
The two classes of gun owners (commoners vs. law enforcement) has long been a pet peeve of mine, everyone who has a permit should be treated the same no matter what class they are.
Why should people without a permit be treated differently than those with one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Leo's don't need a permit to carry while working, they can carry on the badge. If you can't carry on the badge, I guess there's the idea behind two classes of people [ leo and citizens ]. But don't forget, leo's are civilians as well.
I'm not advocating that LEOs should not be able to carry on or off duty. My complaints are with two specific aspects:

1) Providing exemptions for retired LEOs that give them more "rights" than law abiding citizens. It would be one thing to provide an exemption for LEOs if a firearm competency certificate is required in a state to buy a firearm or have a CCW permit. But, when the exemption provides the retired LEO (i.e. Citizen) something that is unobtainable to the Citizens, it does create a separate class that is "more" equal. E.g. normal capacity magazines, allowed to carry in places normally off limits, able to purchase weapons not available to others, etc.

2) For current law enforcement, there are legitimate arguments that they should have exceptions with regard to gun control laws. We can debate whether any of those laws are justified at all, but that aside, assuming there are restrictions they should not necessarily apply to LEOs for their work, not for personal use. For example, if the state has a magazine capacity limit and chooses to exempt LEOs, that exemption should only apply to the magazines provided by their department and should remain the property of the department. In California, some LEOs have exploited their exemption to purchase "off roster" handguns to sell them at a significant profit because that is the only way for law abiding citizens in that state to purchase said firearms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,816 Posts
I'm not advocating that LEOs should not be able to carry on or off duty. My complaints are with two specific aspects:

1) Providing exemptions for retired LEOs that give them more "rights" than law abiding citizens. It would be one thing to provide an exemption for LEOs if a firearm competency certificate is required in a state to buy a firearm or have a CCW permit. But, when the exemption provides the retired LEO (i.e. Citizen) something that is unobtainable to the Citizens, it does create a separate class that is "more" equal. E.g. normal capacity magazines, allowed to carry in places normally off limits, able to purchase weapons not available to others, etc.

2) For current law enforcement, there are legitimate arguments that they should have exceptions with regard to gun control laws. We can debate whether any of those laws are justified at all, but that aside, assuming there are restrictions they should not necessarily apply to LEOs for their work, not for personal use. For example, if the state has a magazine capacity limit and chooses to exempt LEOs, that exemption should only apply to the magazines provided by their department and should remain the property of the department. In California, some LEOs have exploited their exemption to purchase "off roster" handguns to sell them at a significant profit because that is the only way for law abiding citizens in that state to purchase said firearms.
Regarding your second paragraph, how often do we hear the words "LEO's are ALWAYS on duty". Thats an easy way around making the exceptions only for duty use. If an LEO needs an exception to a mag capacity limit, then so does everyone else. Their lives are not more important than everyone elses. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,459 Posts
I'm not advocating that LEOs should not be able to carry on or off duty. My complaints are with two specific aspects:

1) Providing exemptions for retired LEOs that give them more "rights" than law abiding citizens. It would be one thing to provide an exemption for LEOs if a firearm competency certificate is required in a state to buy a firearm or have a CCW permit. But, when the exemption provides the retired LEO (i.e. Citizen) something that is unobtainable to the Citizens, it does create a separate class that is "more" equal. E.g. normal capacity magazines, allowed to carry in places normally off limits, able to purchase weapons not available to others, etc.

2) For current law enforcement, there are legitimate arguments that they should have exceptions with regard to gun control laws. We can debate whether any of those laws are justified at all, but that aside, assuming there are restrictions they should not necessarily apply to LEOs for their work, not for personal use. For example, if the state has a magazine capacity limit and chooses to exempt LEOs, that exemption should only apply to the magazines provided by their department and should remain the property of the department. In California, some LEOs have exploited their exemption to purchase "off roster" handguns to sell them at a significant profit because that is the only way for law abiding citizens in that state to purchase said firearms.
That's a pretty well reasoned argument, especially from someone named Psycho:smashfreakB:

I can see how some would argue that cops might have a crazy whom they arrested might come after them justifying added arms consideration but there are women out there being stalked by crazy X's, all of us who might face a road rage incident. Citizens are every bit as likely to need arms as a cop. The State of California however can use cops in advertisements who will support the State's position which many, especially in the state of confusion, will accept.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
38,993 Posts
Second Amendment -- Or Second-Class Citizens?

This:


Considering this will be heard by the 9th circuit, I don't expect a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. But, if it is then appealed to the Supreme Court, and they decide to hear it, who knows.

California lawmakers know that the only way they will get support from the police (unions) for their efforts to force people back to flintlock firearms is to write in exceptions for LEOs. Exceptions for active LEOs for what they can do or for what types of weapons they may use (not personally own) are arguably more reasonable. But, exceptions for retired LEOs or for current LEOs in what they can personally own creates a class of people that have "more rights". If this was to get a favorable ruling in the SCOTUS it would make it much harder to get support for many of the more egregious gun control laws.
Here's the difference-- one class was required to carry a firearm as a part of their job and qualified annually for probably twenty five years. The other class (maybe) took an eight-hour class and (perhaps) fired fifty rounds as part of a marksmanship test that (probably) no one has ever failed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,526 Posts
I would consider risking their lives for 25 years, placing themselves and potentially their loved one in danger of criminal reprisal could genuinely be considered a "special circumstance". I am certainly not all tore up about the fact that some special circumstances demand special considerations. Just because a LEO has retired does not mean that all the enemies that [we] expected them to face throughout their career have retired as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
This is what happens when you allow the government to issue 2A permits......they can identify you as a group and deny your rights. Thanks Hitler!! :icon_neutral:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Havok

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
Here's the difference-- one class was required to carry a firearm as a part of their job and qualified annually for probably twenty five years. The other class (maybe) took an eight-hour class and (perhaps) fired fifty rounds as part of a marksmanship test that (probably) no one has ever failed.
To add to what Mike1956 said, not only did they have to quailfy every year for the past 20+ years, they were trained to run toward the sound of gunfire. Once retired, that training is still likely to kick in before they think about be retired now.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Here's the difference-- one class was required to carry a firearm as a part of their job and qualified annually for probably twenty five years. The other class (maybe) took an eight-hour class and (perhaps) fired fifty rounds as part of a marksmanship test that (probably) no one has ever failed.
I agree there is a difference but I fail to see the relevance. I say this with all respect for Mike, who is far more Knowledgeable and skilled in firearms than I'm ever likely to be myself.

Its a bit like saying an English professor has a greater right to 1st ammendment protection because they have studied the language more extensively. Yet they may still be utter morons and far more dangerous than the uneducated lout. Certainly much more dangerous to our freedoms as proven by the liberal indoctrination underway in our schools.

Either the 2nd ammendment stands for something or it doesn't. If off duty or retired LEO are mandated to intervene in citizens defense then I can see a special privilege because they are effectively never really "off" duty. Otherwise they should be treated the same as everyone else. And everyone else has gotten the shaft under the 2nd for a long time, so everyone should be treated much much better than they have been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,443 Posts
Anyone willing to stand up for their rights against oppression will suffer much before they see the promised land, and many never will . . .

Sent via my subspace communicator
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
38,993 Posts
I agree there is a difference but I fail to see the relevance. I say this with all respect for Mike, who is far more Knowledgeable and skilled in firearms than I'm ever likely to be myself.

Its a bit like saying an English professor has a greater right to 1st ammendment protection because they have studied the language more extensively. Yet they may still be utter morons and far more dangerous than the uneducated lout. Certainly much more dangerous to our freedoms as proven by the liberal indoctrination underway in our schools.

Either the 2nd ammendment stands for something or it doesn't. If off duty or retired LEO are mandated to intervene in citizens defense then I can see a special privilege because they are effectively never really "off" duty. Otherwise they should be treated the same as everyone else. And everyone else has gotten the shaft under the 2nd for a long time, so everyone should be treated much much better than they have been.
Right or wrong, both the First and Second Amendments come with strings attached. LEOSA has no connection to either. Law enforcement has always had much broader firearms discretion than the rest of the citizenry. LEOSA simply codified it. Arguing that it shouldn't be in effect because it doesn't apply to everyone is an exercise in pointless futility, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
The whole, "They carried and trained for 25 years...." argument seems like a good one, but it's actually not. I'm sure that some of you just got triggered. lol.

Two reasons why:

1. In OR (you all can deal with your own state and their regs, I only deal with and speak for mine) private armed security is regulated and trained by the same state body (DPSST which you can think of as the police academy) as law enforcement. Private armed security have to go through the same training as LEO's and keep the same certifications. They also carry every day for 25 years. Definitely don't get the same privileges when they retire and also don't get to carry concealed off duty. Same exact training though.

2. When I was involved in federal nuclear security at the NV test site, we trained beyond any local LEO or federal DOJ requirements. We carried weapons 24/7 while at the test site and trained weekly. If you wanted to carry a weapon offsite though, you needed a NV permit.

So, to me, the whole training and carrying daily argument doesn't work. I'm sure others can toss out other examples for their states/experiences.

Saying retired LEO's are likely to carry and run towards gun fire is um... an interesting argument at best.

No offense or insult meant to anyone, just pointing out that I find some of the arguments to be lacking. There are definitely some 'second class' citizen issues here, and the extent really matters which state you live in. Like the thread on CA with LEO's buying prohibited firearms and selling the for profit to the local citizenry. Apparently legal for them, not legal for the citizenry.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
38,993 Posts
The whole, "They carried and trained for 25 years...." argument seems like a good one, but it's actually not. I'm sure that some of you just got triggered. lol.

Two reasons why:

1. In OR (you all can deal with your own state and their regs, I only deal with and speak for mine) private armed security is regulated and trained by the same state body (DPSST which you can think of as the police academy) as law enforcement. Private armed security have to go through the same training as LEO's and keep the same certifications. They also carry every day for 25 years. Definitely don't get the same privileges when they retire and also don't get to carry concealed off duty. Same exact training though.

2. When I was involved in federal nuclear security at the NV test site, we trained beyond any local LEO or federal DOJ requirements. We carried weapons 24/7 while at the test site and trained weekly. If you wanted to carry a weapon offsite though, you needed a NV permit.

So, to me, the whole training and carrying daily argument doesn't work. I'm sure others can toss out other examples for their states/experiences.

Saying retired LEO's are likely to carry and run towards gun fire is um... an interesting argument at best.

No offense or insult meant to anyone, just pointing out that I find some of the arguments to be lacking. There are definitely some 'second class' citizen issues here, and the extent really matters which state you live in. Like the thread on CA with LEO's buying prohibited firearms and selling the for profit to the local citizenry. Apparently legal for them, not legal for the citizenry.
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you speak of private armed security. Are these sworn law enforcement officers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I respect those in law enforcement. But, when those who benefit from a special privileged argue why the privileged is needed it rings hollow to me. I have never voted for any measure simply because it benefits me. I was once chastised by a fellow veteran (many years ago) because I did not vote for a measure that provided additional home loan assistance to veterans. Why? Because I already had the VHA that was part of the benefits package that was promised as part of my service. I did not think it was right to ask the rest of the citizens of my state to retroactively grant me additional benefits. Likewise, I would have greater respect to those in law enforcement who would support the constitution that they took an oath to uphold by not lending their support to laws which take away our 2A rights while giving an exception to them. If anything they should be lobbying against such measure.

Now, I know that most of the law enforcement that gives their support comes from the senior leadership which are either elected or at least more political in nature. But, I don't ever recall any arguments against such laws from the rank and file or their unions. Instead, the unions are busy lobbying for the exceptions.
 
1 - 20 of 142 Posts
Top