Posted on 07/28/2004 8:41:07 PM PDT by Ramonan
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' SAFETY ACT SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT BUSH!
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, proudly announced that President George W. Bush signed H.R. 218, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act" into law on Thursday.
"This triumph was the result of a long, hard-fought battle," Canterbury said. "The Fraternal Order of Police has been working toward this day for over ten years. With the stroke of his pen, the President has made real the hopes of law enforcement officers across the nation."
The legislation, sponsored by Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), was passed by the House in June, and then by the Senate earlier this month. It exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Canterbury and F.O.P. Executive Director Jim Pasco were the only law enforcement representatives to meet with the President in the Oval Office before the bill signing. "The President has truly made this country a safer place," said Canterbury after the ceremony. "By enacting this legislation, President Bush has ensured that when officers are confronted with a situation to which they must react, they have the tools necessary to ensure their own safety, and the safety of their families and the public they have been sworn to protect."
Now that the measure has been signed into law, active and retired law enforcement officers will be able to carry their firearms even when traveling outside their own jurisdictions. The bill, which was the F.O.P.'s top legislative priority, had wide, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate during its consideration in the Congress.
"There are many people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude today. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), and Representatives Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Duke Cunningham (R-CA) were all instrumental in moving the bill through the legislative process. We are especially grateful to President Bush, a true friend to law enforcement. Without his tireless support, we would not be here today. But most importantly, we owe our thanks to all those F.O.P. members who have worked so hard to achieve this goal."
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 318,000 members.
The law, first drafted in 1992 by Congressman Randy " Duke" Cunningham and LEAA has become the number one legislative priority of America's rank and file police officers and is also backed by nearly every national organization representing rank and file law enforcement officers. Fotis, along with other leaders from America's law enforcement community and key members of Congress were at the President's side as he signed this unprecedented, life-saving legislation.
These folks will use their firearms to defend themselves and others from violent attacks -- exactly the same way that armed civilians employ their concealed guns in the nearly 40 states that allow honest, law-abiding civilians to carry concealed." Fotis went on to make clear, "Just as we have seen time and time again with civilians who safely and responsibly carry concealed guns because of Right-to-Carry, I believe the brave men and women of law enforcement that can now carry the tools of their trade will help make America more secure." Fotis added, "America's men and women in blue have always known that President Bush stands shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight for public safety and homeland security. By signing this law, the President is making an unprecedented effort to support our nation's protectors after their shift or tour of duty has ended."
LEAA points out for the record, that while President George Bush has unequivocally demonstrated his support of Law Enforcement, including his action today on H.R. 218, just three months ago, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) made a special effort to leave the campaign trail, returning to the Senate to vote against this bill. On March 2, Senator Kerry, against the wishes of the law enforcement community, voted to kill the Senate version of H.R. 218 by voting for 'poison pill' amendments.
(Excerpt) Read more at calibrepress.com ...
Be sure and read the LAST paragraph: Fellow Law Enforcement, Kerry is NOT your friend
I hope this also says that LEO's are no longer allowed to shave their heads and/or take steroids.
BTTT for LEO's!
Do we now have to give our names to a retired LEO outside of his or her jurisdiction?
BTTT
I think Ill leave before I see the vile LEO haters...the ugliness from their generalizations arent what I am about.
Some pigs are now officially more equal than others, here in the grand old USA.
bump
Bump for the LEAA and their support for all American's rights. Screw Jim Pasco's FOP with their rights for me, but not for thee BS.
May be of some interest to you.
Is that the source of all the screaming I heard from the direction of NJ?
I say this because I have a lot of friends who are cops and one works for Philly P.D. One night the cops over in NJ were screaming bloody murder for help and they called Philly and asked them to send a couple of cops over to help. So Philly obliges, and two cars (one driven by my friend's cousin) go screaming across the Tacony-Palmyra. Whatever the problem is, they get it under control, and go home.
The next day their captain gets a call from NJ. The person on the other end wants the names of the men that went over to help the night before. The captain thinks to himself, "hey, this is great, maybe they'll get a commendation or something." He asks if this is what they have in mind.
The person on the other end replies that they want to charge the men for bringing their guns into NJ.
After taking a moment to compose himself, their captain replies that he doesn't know their names, and wouldn't tell them if he did. CLICK.
Forgive me if I hold a special dislike for the Garden State.
> Some ... are now officially more equal than others,
> here in the grand old USA.
If this survives the expected onslaught of state AGs
challenging on constitutional and other grounds, it
will enable national RTC for everyone.
Just out of curiousity, does it apply to the District
of Columbia?
Now if he would just give the same right back to me. Oh well....
No, this means that cops can ride the subways and go to bars with their guns, which they are supposed to do anyway when they are off-duty, but which WAS illegal in NYC, not any more. YEAH!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Bush's conduct is deplorable, destroying the Second Amendment and the common law and constitutions of the States, with the stroke of a pen.
Lighten up Francis
Now, if I read this right, we just got ourselves a whole legion of happenstance air marshalls free of charge.
This also paves the way for multi-state recognition of civilian ccw's. I know, all that muck is against the 2nd Amendment, but I'll take any gains back toward its recognition as a small victory. The mugger waiting to meet you on your next vacation isn't going to argue the fine points of Supreme Court tyranny.
shhhhh this is a secret the media will not be reporting.
They ahve to save the kerry convention because people are being reminded who kerry is, a mass, gun grabin' homo commie.
(/s)
Now we need every American to get the right to carry their weapons wherever.
I'm a retirement eligible (50 yrs old) federal agent that is really happy this bill was passed. I'm stationed in Guam right now, but my home is VA. I was dreading my retirement, because then if I wanted to travel out of VA (where I know I could qualify for a concealed permit), I'd have to go gunless, no trips to DC or MD. Semper Fidelis. P.S. I'm a member of the NRA and feel that only convicted criminals should not be allowed to own guns, concealed or otherwise. I'm not a hunter, but have a "870" for home defense (first 2 rounds out are birdshot, the second two are OO Buck and the last two are rifled slugs).
Outstanding!!!!
:-)
D2
BUSH/CHENEY 2004 !!!!:-) May God Continue To Bless America!!!!:-)
Thank you for your service and may your travels be untroubled. Only a kind man would spot intruders two birdshots ;^ )
Well, where's the Citizen Safety Act?
I support the right to keep and bear arms for every citizen, not just a federally-mandated special class. Once the federal government ordains itself to determine who may bear arms and where, they also ordain themselves to determine who may not carry arms and where.
Question: Aren't the laws against former felons owning weapons federal laws? Perhaps that was the precedent that allowed this latest assault on federalism.
Furthermore, I support being able to carry without fear when I drive or fly across the country. But does not the "full faith and credit" clause in the U.S. Constitution already apply here?
I agree with you that Bush's signing this was deplorable even though I support the end result. The common thread running through his presidency has been his quest to federalize everything he touches.
I am very suspicious of new laws which grant us a right we already have. You're right. This one is a trojan horse.
The office of police, is a department of the common law, which bypassed the founding and the construction and the ratification of the Constitution; the common law being of the States but not of the federal government (for example, the States make the marriage laws, but the federal government does not).
When I was training to be a federal agent, our instructors were very particular about our understanding exactly from where, came our authority to be a federal agent, and to be an armed federal agent, and to make arrests, etc. At the time, in the early 1970's, we had to specifically state the Constitutional portions and the federal statutes that gave us the authority. I recall the day that I met a Secret Service Agent who had all that very neatly printed on a formal ID presentation binder; I recall, because I asked him what was his authority, and he smiled and produced that gem.
I also asked, because part of our instruction was the information about the authority of citizens; what authority they have --- it's quite a lot --- to ask questions about legal procedures, law procedures, due process stuff, and that included challenging (with respect) all government agents, as to, what is their authority, what is their business, and directing them to what in their actions is lawful versus what is not lawful.
Our instructors were real picky about getting it right and not leaving procedures open to successful failure analysis by opposing council, let alone the judge who would, in those days, be just too happy to rake a miserable law enforcement officer's performance over the coals.
For the record, here, law enforcement authority for a police officer whose office is of the State and / or local government (jurisdiction), comes from the State and comes from the local government but does not come from the federal government.
The federal government does not give power to State and local police offices, except under martial law, that is, except in the event of an emergency.
Call the above bill what they will, it is an act of martial law, because that part of the Constitution is wherefrom the authority for such a bill comes. The authority did not come from the Second Amendment nor from a Second Amendment right of either the States or individuals.
This is a very sad day to see the Congress and President sweep the Second Amendment out of the way of the federal government; and worse, it is a sad day to see citizens emotional attachment to guns, supercede our duty to keep government limited in power.
I sincerely hope that this un-Constitutional law, above, gets rescinded, struck down, immediately.
Once the federal government ordains itself to determine who may bear arms and where, they also ordain themselves to determine who may not carry arms and where.Unfortunately true.
That is why the Democrats were for this (yet another) extra-Constitutional [b]reach.
Students "incorrectly believe" that police officers of a police office that is of a State, act with authority of that office...should be:
Students are unaware that police officers of a police office that is of a State, act with authority of that office...
(Few hours sleep, and I need some breakfast!)
Great. Now how about extending that to the rest of the citizens of this country, seeing as how we are all supposedly subject to equal protection. We're not supposed to have a caste system in this country, the last I checked.
Regarding our rights to keep and bear Arms, the Second Amendment affirms the right nationally, not only within the States.
If mustered, then Presidential authority is required to move as a State militia beyond that State, except for when the President may be incapacitated, in which case the governors of the States affected by some national emergency, may act and order the milita to respond outside their borders. Generally, the point here, is that as individuals or small parties, we are free to keep and bear Arms across State lines and anywhere in U.S. territories, and the Second Amendment affirms this right.
Bush should have had the guts to not sign the bill and then restate the Second Amendment's affirmation of our right.
Of course, Bush did not do that because his vast retinue of lawyers are culpably a blank slate on the matter, too.
"Bush declares marshal law. "
When did this happen?
>>Only a kind man would spot intruders two birdshots ;^ )
LMAO over here! So true!
Please see reply 29 and then reply 27.
Other than feeling like a 2nd class citizen, the one thing that does give me hope is the old guys, the "retired law enforcement officers" know and understand what the Constitution is about.
They are the ones we can probably count on to assist us in getting our rights back as they know America is in trouble.
See #27
This MUST be what the Breck-Girl is talking about when he refers to "two Americas". One America for those who are exempt from unconstitutional gun-control laws, and One America for those that are subject to unconstitutional gun-control laws, but I don't recall him mentioning it it last night's diatribe.
Are any of them running for Congress?
God Save the Constitution. Please.
Common law is created by judges. Police depts. are statutory and created by legislatures.
What is unconstitutional here is that the 2nd Amend. was again ignored for purposes of granting fictional priviledges to a particular labor group when addressing full faith and credit problems. If the law is to have any validity in protecting rights and insuring those rights are respected across state borders, then the law should have honored the 2nd Amend. w/o regard to occupation. Congress should have explicitly applied it to the States, w/o waiting for a court decision incorporating it by the 14th Amend.
The split is between those that believe in and promote Freedom, and those that don't. The laws and privaledges granted can't make that distinction. However, those that don't believe in Freedom are likely to take advantage of any special priviledges and laws to advance and promote Freedoms destruction.
I was floored to see Leahey's name in support of this.
bttt
Concur. Your comment above is definitely a tenet of socialism (special privileges), and is a pretty apt description of tyranny in action.
I highly doubt it. When you started your carrer in the 70s the state legal systems were not compromised. Check out the Enabling act of 1934 (the merging of common law and equity at the federal level; it separates/creates a barrier between the sheeple and the constitution).
The Enabling Act directed the US Sureme Court to set up rules of procedure etc. that circumvented the jurisdidciton of the various courts as laid out in the US Constitution. The rules were eventually adopted by all the states by 1983. Most states had done so by the mid seventies.
The problem is not just that the local LEOs have been federalized but the states court systems as well; and challenging jurisdition of a court is not an option.
Sui
He'll be expecting us to do it if we want it saved
That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Some of the finest law enforcement officers in the Country are in New Jersey where some of them walk some of the most dangerous beats in the nation - like Camden and Trenton, Newark and Patterson.
Unfortunately, Police Cheifs are not really law-enforcement officers. They are politicians who owe their positions to the political structure which, in New Jersey, generally means the Democrat Party. And we know about the Democrat's religious aversion to firearms, even when employed in a positive function.
My gratitude goes out to the selfless officers from Philly who came to the aid of their brothers in arms in New Jersey for the sake of the citizens of New Jersey, my admiration goes out to the Philly Captain who provided the proper response to the left-wing beaurocratic shill who called up to complain from Jersey, and my contempt goes out to the Officials of the State of New Jersey who are more concerned with political correctness than logic, or the intent of the Second Amendment.
I HATE New Jersey.
I did not have a career; if anything, it was noted for being almost entirely unremarkable, except for the instances of abuse of the law by a few federal agents. I left because I wanted to get out from under their wreckless disregard for the law. I came away with a serious dislike and distrust of any government agent who abuses the power of their office and abuses the law and abuses our Constitution and abuses the rule of law.
There is nothing lower than a government agent who abuses their power and abuses the public trust.
The most powerful person in America, on a day to day basis, is not the President of the United States. The most powerful person is your State or local district attorney --- who can easily abuse the law and take away your freedom and much more.
Police officers quite often get the blame for what is really the failures in office, of district attorney's and judges.
As suijuris illustrated, original intentions are all water under the bridge at this point. This bill has been tweaked and subjected to the scrutiny of legal minds for over a dozen years. The only thing protecting us from the Trojan Horse effect is the hearts and intentions of our leadership. It shouldn't be that way at all, but I've been thinking new Constitutional Convention for some time now.
Me too.
TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 131 > Sec. 2072.
Sec. 2072. - Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe
(a)
The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.
(b)
Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.
(c)
Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title
The dist. courts were created under the US Constitution, as was the Supreme Court. Given that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to enact such rules and the Supreme Court is the end arbitor of the lower fed courts, this standardization is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing sinister about this. It is simple standardization of procedure.
There is no federalization going on here either. The fact that any State later chose to standardize procedures following any fed standards means no more than the standards were derived from a template.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.