peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 June 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteThis is an example of a state being "forced" to honor lesser qualifications. Except that in many states it isn't a matter of qualifications, it's a matter of the entire practice being unlawful. Okay, so that would affect someone from Florida wanting to carry in Illinois... but there are other states that DO issue CCW but do not recognize FL permits. There's not even a guarantee of a significant difference between the qualifications to get a permit, here. So what's the rational justification for denial of the right to carry, then? QuoteAlso, some states allow for gay marriages but that doesn't mean those marriages will be honored in other states. It's not quite so black and white. What about the drinking age or age of consent? Those "qualifications" vary from state to state. I think it's problematic to have, in one nation, different states with different ages of legality for things like sex, marriage, drinking, driving, etc. When there's one state that allows sex at one age, and another state that allows it at a different age, then that's proof that it is not a moral or ethical distinction but a statutory one. Who's to say what's right? What if a 19-year-old has sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend where the age of consent is 17? They have an entrenched relationship, and then they go on vacation to another state, where they rent a hotel room and have sex. NOW it's a CRIME? How could anybody defend the turning of a legal act into a criminal act based simply and exclusively on geography and jurisiction?! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #27 June 27, 2004 Quote We do not change into untrustworthy people just because we drive over an imaginary line! - I don't turn into an untrustworthy person because I travel on an airliner. Or because I fly my own plane over a town where a college football game is in progress. Or because I teach a course using model rockets to interest inner city kids in math and science.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #28 June 27, 2004 QuoteI think it's problematic to have, in one nation, different states with different ages of legality for things like sex, marriage, drinking, driving, etc. It's not problematic, it's the way our founders intended it to be. If South Carolina wanted to make it illegal for anyone to sell alcohol in their state, yet will issue a S&W .357 to every male citizen on his 16th birthday, they have that right. I, however, would never move there._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #29 June 27, 2004 QuoteI wish I could remember who it was about and where I read it, but it was either John Kerry or Ted Kennedy who did not even support the idea of their off-duty police officers carrying concealed guns -- IN THEIR OWN STATE! Don't even go there lmao think of who you are talking about, you just shot yourself in the foot. No matter if deep inside their mind they want it or not they are saying anything they can to get all the democrat votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #30 June 27, 2004 Quote How could anybody defend the turning of a legal act into a criminal act based simply and exclusively on geography and jurisiction?! I think they call that Federalism And I like it. Why should someone in CA be able to tell me how to live my life in FL? Or why should I be able to tell some Mormans in UT how they should have to sell alcohol? If I don't like how IL runs its state, I don't ever have to live there. And I personally never plan to. Different states have different laws and they all have a different feel to them. You can pick and choose the one that best fits your personality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 June 27, 2004 People are forgetting something. Some states don't allow out of state officers to carry, even while on official business without a specific exemption. (California, New Jersey, and Hawaii come to mind) QuoteLaws concerning police officers carrying hand guns through and to other States while on duty or off duty continue to be confusing and volatile. There is wide variation among States regarding how non-resident police officers can legally carry a weapon. In some jurisdictions strict local ordinances may exist to prohibit anyone from carrying a handgun. It is wise to contact the agencies of the jurisdictions that you will be traveling through or to before you enter these jurisdictions. Also, cities and localities may have their own firearms ordinances in addition to federal and state laws. Details may be obtained by contacting local law enforcement authorities, and by consulting the State Laws and Published Ordinances--Firearms, available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402. Laws pertaining to an officer carrying a weapon on or off duty constantly change, and we must state a disclaimer... http://www.ipa-usa.org/region43/handgunlaws.html If someone is going to say that we have to respect states' rights to deny non residents the ability to carry legally, how can they argue that we don't have to respect states' rights to deny out of state officers? MarkM, this is more specifically to your question: I don't know whether or not all states allow officers to carry while off duty. I do know, however, that even if all states allow off duty carry, individual departments have the final decision. Any department may deny its officers the right to carry concealed while off duty (though some state level case law points in the other direction, this is generally the case). Also, in states without preemption laws, some counties or municipalities outlaw all carry of handguns (some even outlaw ownership of handguns). That means no one may carry there except officers of that jurisdiction and officers of that state on state business. Some people state that a LEO is a LEO 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is not always the case. When a LEO is working off duty out of uniform (such as body guards or security), he is subject to a very different set of rules. So, in total, no, not every state grants that right to LEOs, LEO off duty carry is not universal, and where is does exist it is likely to be different in the next jurisdiction. (you know what, that summation reminds me a great deal of how I would describe Right To Carry laws across the US...) edit to add source of quotewitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #32 June 28, 2004 QuoteQuote We do not change into untrustworthy people just because we drive over an imaginary line! - I don't turn into an untrustworthy person because I travel on an airliner. Or because I fly my own plane over a town where a college football game is in progress. Or because I teach a course using model rockets to interest inner city kids in math and science. Poor analogy. If this were to apply to traveling on an airliner, it would have to be so that when traveling in certain places, they let you carry weapons on board, and then not in others. The practice would have to be considered perfectly okay in one place and totally illegal in another. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
