Cops Get National Gun Carry

[JohnRich 4]

In the news:

Bush Signs Law Enforcement Officers' Act

"The Fraternal Order of Police has been lobbying for this for over ten years, and they're happy the president is finally allowing them to carry weapons even when they aren't on duty.

"Thursday President Bush signed off on House Resolution 218, or as its better know, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act."

"Officers have to be certified every year to carry their guns on duty, and they say everyone should feel safer now that they're carrying their guns with them wherever they go. Officers will be able to cross state lines with their guns, and even go into places that prohibit concealed carry permits."

News Story

Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act

Now all they've got to do is to allow regular citizens with concealed carry licenses the same rights as police officers.

Or maybe the lives of police officers are more valuable than the rest of us peons.

The Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause requires each state to recognize the official acts of other states. It applies to driver's licenses, marriages, and numerous other things.

But when it comes to guns, the Constitution doesn't seem to apply any more...

[quade 4]

Quote

Now all they've got to do is to allow regular citizens with concealed carry licenses the same rights as police officers.

I would grant them the same privileges if they also took on the same responsibilities and requirements. Like, for instance, annual recertification.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'd let that fly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I would grant them the same privileges if they also took on the same responsibilities and requirements. Like, for instance, annual recertification.

How about every 4 years? Similar setup to the CCW in Texas?

Background check, basically if you have done anything more then get a speeding ticket, you don't get one. Any police officer can disarm you if they choose, if you screw up (read: Class B misdemenor or worst) you loose your CCW permit. Long class and training on the laws applying to use and carry. That's what the 4 year is as well.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 4]

Well, this would have to be some sort of federal law similar to marriage in one state being valid in another.

Four years seems to me to be an awfully long time. Heck, even the new police officer law specifies 1 year so to let the general public go for four seems out of whack.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I would grant them the same privileges if they also took on the same responsibilities and requirements. Like, for instance, annual recertification.

Suppose that your state of residence requires your driver's license to be renewed only every six years. And suppose that the other states around you require their driver's licenses to be renewed every four years.

And based upon that renewal disparity, would it then be proper for the four-year states to refuse to recognize driver's licenses from the six-year state, because they don't have the same responsibility and requirements?

Would you then feel that it would be appropriate for the police in the four-year states to issue you a ticket when you enter their territory, for driving without a valid license?

Be careful what you ask for...

This is what the "full faith and credit" clause is supposed to address. Each state gets to set their own criteria, but the states are obligated to recognize official acts from other states. This is why the gay marriage issue is such a hot issue - if one state allows it, all others are required to recognize it.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

I would grant them the same privileges if they also took on the same responsibilities and requirements. Like, for instance, annual recertification.

Suppose that your state of residence requires your driver's license to be renewed only every six years. And suppose that the other states around you require their driver's licenses to be renewed every four years.

And based upon that renewal disparity, would it then be proper for the four-year states to refuse to recognize driver's licenses from the six-year state, because they don't have the same responsibility and requirements?

Would you then feel that it would be appropriate for the police in the four-year states to issue you a ticket when you enter their territory, for driving without a valid license?

all Arizonans would be screwed..our licenses dont expire until we turn 64..no matter when they are issued... one reason i kept my residency when i was in WA...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

An interesting point about this:

The officers are not sworn to uphold the laws of other states they may happen to enter (armed or not). They are not entitled or empowered to act as law enforcement officers outside of their jurisdiction, right? Nor are they empowered or expected to, while off duty and armed in another state, enforce federal laws. So why are they now entitled to carry concealed firearms in other states? Given what I said above is all true (and I think it is), then this is strictly about extending their right to personal protection.

Because let's be honest, if they find themselves witnessing a carjacking or purse snatching in a different state, they are no more empowered to arrest the perpetrator than any other person in that state, CCW or not. The police in that jurisdiction are the proper personnel to handle such an incident, not some cop who is on vacation and has his Glock 27 in his fanny pack.

So given that this is not about empowering police from one jurisdiction to act as police in a different one, I don't see why giving average citizens the same right to carry should bring with it the burden of meeting police officers training-for-training. There is nothing different between me carrying in Jacksonville, Florida and me carrying in southern Georgia except for a state line having been crossed -- so if I'm a trustworthy person in FL, worthy of the right to carry a firearm there, I should be worthy of it in other states as well. Paper distinctions are meaningless here.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Well, this would have to be some sort of federal law similar to marriage in one state being valid in another.

Well, even with my Texas CCW I can still carry in a lot of other states (19 actually) due to their laws and the other states' recognition of Texas top notch program.

Quote

Four years seems to me to be an awfully long time. Heck, even the new police officer law specifies 1 year so to let the general public go for four seems out of whack.

Why? Explain.

If *anything* illegal of conciquence is done, the CCW looses his/her license, point blank, no questions asked. The CCW public is generally held to a higher standard then the police when it comes to use of their weapon, the recent history has shown that.

Show me the cases across the country (the 23 states that have a CCW law) in which a CCW permit holder commited some sort of illegal act with their weapon. Now show me the cases in which a yearly recertification process would have made a difference? I can only think of 1 or 2 instances of illegal use of a weapon by a CCW holder, so its gonna be hard to prove your point.

My point has been proven with successful CCW programs across the US, using 4 year programs.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 4]

I was just going off of the information you posted originally that said the police officers had to re-certify each year.

Why would you grant the general population easier access to this than law enforcement? Flipped around, if you could simply grant this to everyone the recent law becomes moot but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Show me the cases across the country (the 23 states that have a CCW law) in which a CCW permit holder commited some sort of illegal act with their weapon.

Check the stats lately -- I believe it's now more like THIRTY SIX states (and one or two have undergone, or are undergoing, legal challenges to activation of the law).

But the latter point -- it is true that some permit holders have gotten in trouble, specifically through the use of their weapon. In only one of the three cases that come to mind (in Florida), was the permit actually a factor:

- Local gun rights activist James Settembre (search Google for story), apparently depressed over something, and prior to moving out of state, shot dead his dog, his wife and himself at their home. (Note, no permit required to have the gun in his home, so not a CCW issue per se.)

- Local man in traffic altercation flashes gun on hip, claims, "I'm a police officer." He is not. He is a CCW permit holder, though. Now in trouble with the law. Probably will lose CCW permit.

- Local man shoots, kills 16-year-old (6'2") prankster outside front door after midnight prank. Man had been victim of local vandals in months prior. Boy found to be unarmed, but man thought he saw weapon in hand. May have been object held by kid.

I am making no judgments about these incidents, and I STRONGLY SUPPORT VERY LOOSELY-RESTRICTED CCW RIGHTS, but it is important for us to maintain credibility by not falsely claiming that CCW holders "never" get into gun-related trouble.

IT IS TRUE THAT AS A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, THE CCW-PERMIT-HOLDER DEMOGRAPHIC IS FAR LESS COMMONLY ARRESTED FOR ALL MANNER OF CRIMES. We ARE more law-abiding than the public at large. Out of millions of permits issued nationwide, a pittance have been revoked for gun- or violence-related issues.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I would grant them the same privileges if they also took on the same responsibilities and requirements. Like, for instance, annual recertification.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'd let that fly.

Quade - CCWs holders don't need to train to the same level of proficiency as cops. They are only sanctioned to use their weapons for defensive needs. They do not have to deal with situations like a liquor store holdup where they are tasked with protecting people in addition to themselves.

But for all that, cops aren't great shots. That can lead to 41 shots being fired at an unarmed person. Lots of recreational shooters are much more proficient. But annual certifications - that would be a burden intended to make it as difficult as possible.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I was just going off of the information you posted originally that said the police officers had to re-certify each year.

Why would you grant the general population easier access to this than law enforcement?

Because cops are responsible for doing a lot more than the average civilian has to: recognize that a crime is being committed; determine who the actors are and who the victims are, and differentiate between the two even when arriving on-scene after an attack has begun; arrest said actors in compliance with their civil rights, department regulations and procedures; maintain public order during a crisis, possibly using non-lethal or lethal force ... probably a lot more. All that a civilian is generally going to do with his gun is defend himself or his family; he is not going to have any possible confusion about who is attacking him, because he won't be arriving midway during the commission of an attack against him. He will be either justified or unjustified to use lethal force; this won't be changing from year to year, either. He will have learned those differences during his initial training to qualify for his CCW permit, and from then on it is his responsibility to maintain familiarity with the conditions. Generally, he will not be in nearly the kinds of situations in which a police officer can easily find himself, and therefor does not need nearly the scope of training -- and proficiency-maintenance training -- that cops need.

Is that an adequate answer to your question?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

all Arizonans would be screwed..our licenses dont expire until we turn 64..no matter when they are issued... one reason i kept my residency when i was in WA..

Hell, in PA ours never expire. And think of Vermont. They don't even have licenses. Everyone is legally permitted to carry concealed. Residents, non-residents, felons, the criminally insane. Only restrictions are that students can't carry to a school (but non-students can), can't carry into state institutions, and you can only carry a loaded long gun in a car with you if you're a parapalegic hunter (I kid you not).

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

all Arizonans would be screwed..our licenses dont expire until we turn 64..no matter when they are issued... one reason i kept my residency when i was in WA..

Hell, in PA ours never expire. And think of Vermont. They don't even have licenses. Everyone is legally permitted to carry concealed. Residents, non-residents, felons, the criminally insane. Only restrictions are that students can't carry to a school (but non-students can), can't carry into state institutions, and you can only carry a loaded long gun in a car with you if you're a parapalegic hunter (I kid you not).

Please supply some source material to bolster the claim that nothing legally prohibits felons, the criminally insane, or drug abusers (which you didn't mention but who are typically prohibited) from carrying concealed firearms in Vermont.

I was under the impression that you had to be the typical "law-abiding citizen in good standing."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Please supply some source material to bolster the claim that nothing legally prohibits felons, the criminally insane, or drug abusers (which you didn't mention but who are typically prohibited) from carrying concealed firearms in Vermont.

Can't, that's the point. There are no laws on the books in Vermont regarding permission to carry. It's not even mentioned in their laws either for or against carry. Nothing citing requirements for nor restriction of other than the few exceptions that I posted.

From www.packing.org:
VT has no statutes concerning concealed carry, nor is there a specific statute that allows it. In the absence of a statute that prohibits it, then it is taken that there is no law against it.

Here's their statutes http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=21

Only what is explicitly denied in their legislation restricts you. Only think about felons or felonies is that you can't be in the act of commiting one while posessing a firearm.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There are no laws on the books in Vermont regarding permission to carry. It's not even mentioned in their laws either for or against carry. Nothing citing requirements for nor restriction of other than the few exceptions that I posted... Only think about felons or felonies is that you can't be in the act of commiting one while posessing a firearm.

Actually, that makes perfect sense. If they're not threatening anyone or committing any crimes, then the gun in their possession is harmless. Just carrying it around doesn't hurt anyone.

We shouldn't be criminalizing acts which by themselves aren't harmful. That's like saying that possession of a parachute without a USPA PRO rating is illegal, because you *might* use it to make an unqualified demo jump.

Only the actual criminal misuse of the gun should be illegal. And when that is done, then the law should come down on them HARD.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well, even with my Texas CCW I can still carry in a lot of other states (19 actually) due to their laws and the other states' recognition of Texas top notch program.

True enough, but that's still a long way from all 50 states. Those agreements are made on a state-by-state basis only, between respective Governors and Attorney Generals.

And that creates a patchwork quilt of "landmine" states, which don't recognize the permits, and if crossed into without realizing their CCW reciprocity status, can get you in big trouble.

Before I go off on a trip, I have to check the NRA site to find out which of the states I'm passing through recognize my CCW license, and which ones don't. Then I have to stop at state lines on the side of the highway and move my gun from the center console, to the rear, and unload it, storing the ammo separately.

And that's a bunch of crap - I shouldn't magically become a criminal just for passing over some imaginary line in the road. On one side of the line I'm considered a fine upstanding law-abiding citizen, but take one step over the line, and on the other side I'm considered a criminal.

Honest citizens don't deserve to be treated like this. They deserve the same consideration that President Bush just gave to honest cops.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

And that's a bunch of crap - I shouldn't magically become a criminal just for passing over some imaginary line in the road. On one side of the line I'm considered a fine upstanding law-abiding citizen, but take one step over the line, and on the other side I'm considered a criminal.

That is the consequence of lack of reciprocity that I have been repeating over and over here, asking ANY defenders of that aspect of the gun laws to defend it, and so far, no one has. No one has come up with a decent reason for it -- only b.s. like "it's a state's right to decide how they want to restrict people carrying guns." NO comment on why you should be treated differently for going over an imaginary line. NO comment on what makes you supposedly worthy or unworthy -- which SHOULD be the basis for such a law -- depending on which side you're standing on. No one can defend this. No one has really even tried.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

While I agree with your stance, not at the expense of state's rights. I understand the other side, and I think you proved their point yourself.

Quote

only b.s. like "it's a state's right to decide how they want to restrict people carrying guns." NO comment on why you should be treated differently for going over an imaginary line. NO comment on what makes you supposedly worthy or unworthy

Crossing into another state isn't BS. It's not just an imaginary line, it's a border between separate states which reserve the right to legislate within their borders. As far as being worthy or unworthy, that's the point. VT may consider everyone to be worthy, even felons, drug addicts, or the certifiably insane. New York may not think you're worthy unless you have extensive training.

The reason you are suddenly worthy or unworthy after crossing an imaginary line is because the duly elected legislature of the governing body of that state is who decides if you are worthy.

I'd like a consistent law across the country. Even if it means some kind of mandatory requirements or testing, provided those requirements or testing don't become a tax to limit those who apply. A few bucks a year per licensee to finance testing at local ranges seems reasonable to me.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

only b.s. like "it's a state's right to decide how they want to restrict people carrying guns." NO comment on why you should be treated differently for going over an imaginary line. NO comment on what makes you supposedly worthy or unworthy

Crossing into another state isn't BS. It's not just an imaginary line, it's a border between separate states which reserve the right to legislate within their borders.

If you're talking about the relative difference to public safety involved in letting that individual carry a firearm, then it is an "imaginary line," and that's exactly the point JohnRich and I are making.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

While I agree with your stance, not at the expense of state's rights. I understand the other side, and I think you proved their point yourself.

Quote

only b.s. like "it's a state's right to decide how they want to restrict people carrying guns." NO comment on why you should be treated differently for going over an imaginary line. NO comment on what makes you supposedly worthy or unworthy

Crossing into another state isn't BS.

You proved my point by again, not offering anything about the relative difference between Person A carrying in one state, and Person A continuing to carry across a state line.

Nothing you said addressed what is ostensibly the real concern of the laws that govern how much training a given state requires before a person can carry concealed. That would be about supposedly ensuring that the person is safe and reliable before he can carry concealed firearms, right? That would be the point of the laws? You proved my point about how no one adequately addresses this.

Let's say State A has 1, 2 and 3 requirements for concealed carry. Neighboring State B has 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 laws -- they are more stringent in the training required to get the permit.

What if State A can definitively show that even though they lack items 4 and 5 in their training requirements, the accident rate and the crime rate among their CCW holders are actually about identical to those of State B? Sorta would illustrate that maybe there's no real need for those two extra requirements. And I'd be willing to bet that there is virtually no discernible difference in crime rates and accident rates among CCW holders from state-to-state. Both are probably statistically insignificant, no matter which CCW state you're talking about, from the most stringent to the least. No, I don't have data. Call this a strong hunch based on other stats I've seen about the law-abidingness of CCW holders in general.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Like I said, I agree with your stance. And I agree with your assumptions regarding the relative safety between states with differering requirements. I'm not arguing that at all and wish it were consistent everywhere. However, that doesn't justify forcing states to agree with that. It's up to each individual states constituents to push for reciprocity. Not the feds to mandate it.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

- Local man shoots, kills 16-year-old (6'2") prankster outside front door after midnight prank. Man had been victim of local vandals in months prior. Boy found to be unarmed, but man thought he saw weapon in hand. May have been object held by kid.

Thank God this man had a gun, God only knows what could have happened if he didn't have a gun.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

- Local man shoots, kills 16-year-old (6'2") prankster outside front door after midnight prank. Man had been victim of local vandals in months prior. Boy found to be unarmed, but man thought he saw weapon in hand. May have been object held by kid.

Thank God this man had a gun, God only knows what could have happened if he didn't have a gun.

This is one bad example.
I have had, personally, three very good examples, this means nothing - it is the exception to the rule.

Will you stop flying a parachute because - sometimes - it malfunctions?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Will you stop flying a parachute because - sometimes - it malfunctions?

Nope, but we certainly mandate training, don't we.