Historic New Law

President Bush recently signed into law H.R. 218, also known as "The Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004". This new Federal law exempts off-duty and qualified retired police officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. In other words, a police officer from one state can now carry a concealed handgun in any of the 50 states without having to navigate the often confusing state licensing requirements.

This is a huge victory for law enforcement as well as the general population. At no cost to anyone, there will now be hundreds of thousands of trained, armed law enforcement officers on the streets ready to protect themselves and others from violent attacks from criminals, terrorists, vicious animals, etc.

I'll take the opportunity to mention that this measure passed the Senate, but in one of the few votes he has made since declaring himself a Presidential candidate, John Kerry flew back to Washington to cast his vote in an attempt to kill the bill. But he says he's a "friend" to law enforcement. With friends like that....

 

I personally like the law, it's long over due especially after 9/11,
and I think it will make a difference in helping to keep the country safer!!

And as far as Kerry is concerned, there he goes again, flip flopping.
He keeps saying that he will help keep the country safer from terrorists, and then he goes and tries to kill this bill and take away the weapons from the very people who should have these weapons!

Maybe it's me, but I just don't get it!

Rich Hartel

 

It's been the law here in New Mexico for ever.

 

It's a huge victory for class warfare. We now have a superclass of citizens to whom ordinary laws don't apply.

Sad that I can get a CCW in Florida and not be able to carry in my home state, while a rookie cop from, say, North Dakota (to pick a state at random) who has probably put maybe one percent of the rounds downrange that I have, can carry in my backyard.

Equal protection? Ok then.

 

I'm personally in favor of the law, but can understand why folks might oppose it.

In many countries, there is a special class of citizens--police, military, or some mix of the two--who can basically act with impunity. This law could be seen as stepping right on top of that slippery slope. I don't believe it does--and I'm betting Howard Dean (who got A's from the National Rifle Association) wouldn't believe it does either--but the danger of that sort of thing happening one day, even in America, is real.

But then I also think that Kerry's defense of the Massachusetts and Missouri anti-gay marriage amendments is beginning to sound like Abraham Lincoln's 1860 platform on abolition of slavery: "Southern states have a right to protect the institution of slavery, but we shouldn't expand slavery to the Western Territories because, uh, a house divided against itself cannot stand." I'm not sure any social issue has ever been intelligently defended on the basis of state's rights; it's a cop-out. Writing bigotry into state constitutions is no better than writing bigotry into the U.S. Constitution. I don't see how anyone could oppose the latter but support the former.

Do I support Kerry anyway? Yeah, of course I do. I'm willing to bet you strongly disagree with Bush on a few issues, too, and I'd love to hear what they are.


Cheers,

 

How do you figure? Police, by their nature, need to do things very differently than the general citizenry. Even before this new law, both state & Federal law allowed me to carry a machine gun on-duty (I don't, obviously), while it's almost impossible for Joe Citizen to even see one in-person. Does that make me a "superclass" of citizen?

I'm all for interstate reciprocity of gun permits, as long as standards were made universal, but we both know that isn't going to happen. Some states make you jump through 1000 hoops to get a gun permit, while others will almost hand them out to anyone with a pulse.

OTOH, deadly force training is pretty much universal for all law enforcement officers in the United States. I'd be willing to bet that the deadly force policy for my department is almost word-for-word the same as the NYC Police, LAPD, or the FBI.

Which brings me to another point.....it's not just a matter of knowing how to use a firearm (putting rounds downrange) but, more importantly, when to use it (hours & hours of classroom training, field exercises, and real-world experience).

BTW....read the law at the link I posted. You can ask the rookie cop from North Dakota to leave your property if you wish.

 

Oh, you bet I do.

The first thing that comes to mind is illegal immigration. Bush seems inclined to hand over the Southwest to Mexico, or so it seems. IMO, lack of border control is the number one security problem facing this country. Besides the obvious terrorist threat, the tidal wave of illegal immigrants is going to eventually bankrupt California, Texas, and Arizona.

It's got to stop, and Bush seems unwilling to do anything about it.

 

Seems? That kind of verbal restraint is why we call 'em moderators!

 

So - what are we talking about here?

That an unbigoted constitutional reading of Second Amendment rights would impose no restrictions on gun rights?

AS for states rights ever being the intelligent basis for a social issue? Certainly, it was in the case of slavery - but for illiberal ends.
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/970501Higgs.html
It's just fashionable (with the establishment Left) to forget and to credit the All Wise Seeing (federal) State with a wisdom it never had in the first place (the compromise of 1787). It was this that led to the vitiation of the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution and today's maintainence of unconstitutional governance of the US.

The cause of “states’ rights” was hijacked by illiberals, who hitched it to slavery and then Jim Crow — that is, stated-mandated and state-enforced servitude, segregation, and degradation. This was the key in helping to discredit the liberal cause of "live and let live" pacifism.

-Orson

 

United States Constitution
Amendment II

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.
What part is not understood here? ..the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." or "...shall NOT be infringed..."?
Note that in 1791, when this was written "Militia" referred to non-uniformed, i.e. citizens defending their homes, property, and their country. This was based on the Switzerland model, where every citizen is armed, and ready to fight off any invaders. Countries that had disarmed the citizenry "for their own protection" such as The Netherlands, were promptly invaded in WWII, but Switzerland retained its independence.
I am not one of those who advocate every person going around with a gun on their hip, (Ref: John Wayne) but crime could possibly be reduced if more people were trained in the proper use of firearms, and were THEN permitted to carry.

 

Good point. I have no problem with qualified out of state residents carrying in my home state. However, I think the law should be expanded to include properly licensed civilians.

Concealed weapon licenses should be completely reciprocal. My license to carry should be valid anywhere within the U.S., just like my driver's license. It's not fair that this law applies only to law enforcement personnel; many of whom have far less firearm experience than I do.

 

Read my above post....I agree, if state licensing standards were universal, which they aren't.

This is something I often hear, but it's a non-starter. Many civilians have more experience handling firearms than a lot of law enforcement officers, but very, very few civilians have even a fraction of the use of deadly force training that even a rookie graduate of the police academy has.

Shooting at the range is great practice for how to use a firearm, but it's infinitely more important to know when to use it.

 

Well said. In fact, I believe Switzerland has the lowest crime rate per capita in the world.

I for one, own a few guns. One of which is a handgun. In Ohio they have passed the concealed carry law into effect. However, in motor vehicles one cannot be within reach of the firearm. This is good verses road rage, but has it's apparent downfalls as well.

BTW my pistol is a Springfield XD9. It has a four inch barrel, ambidex. saftey, 10 round mag. I really like it and the quality for the price can't be beat.

 

Deadly force training.....

If this is what officers learn at use of deadly force training, I'd rather have apes protecting me.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/08/police.kill.dog/

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/3912950.htm?1c

 

Re: Deadly force training.....

It's very disappointing to see that kind of attitude, considering that President Bush strongly supports both H.R. 218 and law enforcement in general.

I know your type Busho4.....I see it at my civilian range all the time. They're jealous & frustrated that I can carry a gun anywhere, and they continually try to impress upon me that they somehow know more about guns than I do (even thought I shoot a minimum of 50 rounds a week with my service pistol).

Coincidentally, that type usually can't hit water if they fell out of a boat.

 

I agree. I think its a good law as well. I don't own a gun nor do I know how to use one; however, I really like the idea of retired and off duty law enforcement being able to have their weapon with them at all times.

I'm still voting for Kerry though.

 

Re: Re: Historic New Law

It's okay, you're forgiven.

 

I'm sure that if untrained "expert marksman" civilians were regularly expected to carry a gun and respond to dangerous situations... Well, I don't think I even need to finish that sentence. Busho, follow the logic here: Why would police officers be less competent than those who have received no formal education in conflict resolution, use of deadly force, and so on and so forth?

As for the Second Amendment... The Supreme Court last definitively ruled on this in U.S. v. Miller (1938), though there have been smaller cases since then. It's not as simple as it looks; the Second Amendment is the only amendment that suggests a cause-effect relationship, and the only amendment that uses an obsolete term (Washington's "well-regulated militia" of civilians, which no longer exists; its modern equivalent is the National Guard).

Now, if you go into original intent and documentary sources, you will find that most of the Founders clearly wished civilians to all have access to the same weapons the government has access to, so that they can overthrow it by force at any time should it become corrupt. The Second Amendment doesn't refer at all to this as a rationale--it refers to the aforementioned well-regulated militia--but it's the heart of the individual freedom interpretation. But even with the most libertarian interpretation of the Second Amendment in effect, we still wouldn't meet that standard. Weaponry isn't what it used to be, where it was all rifles versus rifles. In order to fulfill original intent, everyone in the United States would have to have access to WMDs, tanks, state-of-the-art fighter jets, and anything else our government has access to. Since that's neither practical nor safe, we're all violating the original intent of the framers when interpreting the Second Amendment. The only issue is whether we should use the militia interpretation of the amendment and hold that it protects the National Guard and state militias, or protect all personal firearm ownership.

The other issue is whether the Second Amendment should ever be applied to the states. The only reason it might would be if it were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine, as most of the rest of the Bill of Rights is--but the Court has not yet ruled that the Second Amendment falls under Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.


Cheers,

 

http://www.thewpbfchannel.com/news/1301584/detail.html
http://www.ktre.com/global/story.asp?s=1450369&ClientType=Printable
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2003/09/20nccoofficershoo.html
http://www.savannahmorningnews.com/stories/070400/LOCdog.shtml
http://www.channeloklahoma.com/news/2153623/detail.html

You don't know my type, Bruce. You know nothing about me. One thing I am not is jealous. I am more concerned than anything. Allowing the hot tempered, underpaid, under-trained, and undereducated grits -- who my town officials actually call police officers -- carry anywhere within the U.S., is just asking for trouble.

No one should receive special out of jurisdiction or off duty rights ONLY because they make a living while wearing a uniform. Deadly force training or not, police officers (just like civilians) often commit atrocious acts. Police officers are not heroes. Some engage in heroic conduct, but others commit criminal acts.

 

One of the reasons I don't mind paying taxes is because I like having police...and firefighters...and roads.....and schools. Sure there are some bad cops but they are the exception, not the rule. It seems like the kind of job where you're really never off duty if there is a problem. I don't mind them being armed in such a case. The bad guys are....