ATTN: Law Enforcement Officers SUPPORT S.253 / HR 218

David C. Osborne ^ | 29 July 2003 | David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Why should they be special?
Off duty, they are citizens like everyone else.

If I can't carry, they can't. If they can, I should be able to.

[Ravenstar]

No! They should not be "exempt". This always has been an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It is everyones right so just get the Unconstitutional Laws off the books and that will solve this problem. The point of the Constitution, why do so many who call themselves conservative not know this, is that it is a Creator given right for ALL not just cops. There are no "special" groups if you truly function by the Constitution.

Now if you point out that we aren't functioning that way now so you support this law You are allowing an even more dangerous precedent that will put us down the final slide to a total police state!

Ravenstar

[Joe Brower]

"Rights for me, none for thee".

[teeman8r]

let the special claim their rights and then under the equal protection clause, demand ours...

i know that we all should be able to, but until we start defying the law and carrying and winning in court, the overlookers will continue their folly...

teeman

[sgtbono2002]

Many cops are legalised gun nuts. They should have no more rights than other Americans. In fact most cops act and think they are above the law now. Its a fraternity and they act like it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Orwellian.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

When only cops have guns, that is a police state.

What do the police have in mind for us that they want to be exclusively armed?

Suffer with the peons, and help fight for our rights.

[Oatka]

Donning my flame-retardant undies.

I am for this bill, even though I agree that this is Orwellian.

However, just as the antis have stripped us of gun rights a little at a time, we have to do the same in reverse.

If this bill becomes law, the next step is "Hey! How come the retired cops can carry but I can't? It's not fair (to turn the libs argument back on themselves)."

As long as we are divided and fight each other we will get nowhere.

Small steps, small steps.

[mass55th]

"Off duty, they are citizens like everyone else."

You're wrong. They're not citizens off duty. They're police officers/peace officers 24 hours a day. They are required to respond to emergencies whether they are on duty or not.

[Jason_b]

Who counts as a "Qualified Law Enforcement Officer?" It implies officer friendly, but is it limited to him?

BATF

ATF

IRS

SWAT

I don't know. Do we want those guys to be covered by this? Will they be?

[midcop402]

The agencies you listed are Federal (except SWAT) and they automatically carry in all 50 states. These bills are to allow the other 120,000 or so officers to carry in all 50 states.
The bills identify officers are current or retired in good standing. In other words, they retired and were not fired.

I have suffered numerous contract negotiations. One of the most damaging views that can be taken is :if they can why can't I and if I can't have it, they can't either. This attitude destroyed more progressive contract settlements than I can count.

The long term vision of this bill is that once it is passed for law enforcement, the wailing and fear mongering will be muted and the push will be on for all CCW holders to carry nationwide. In fact, it is this issue that has held up these bills in the past. We need these bills to be passed cleanly and not loaded down with a bunch of unnecessary stuff.

So, support everything positive even if you don't get a piece of it this time around.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ARE YOU CRAZY. WHY SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT BE GIVEN SPECIAL PRIVILAGES TO RTC. THIS IS STUPID. THERE LIVES ARE NO MORE VALUABLE THAN MINE OR YOURS.

[Stat-boy]

I promise to support your bill if at the same time Congress passes a bill titled:

“Finance Professionals Safety Act of 2003

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.”


Seriously, there is a big difference between an off-duty Texas cop, on the one hand, and either a retired Texas cop or non-Texas cop in Texas, on the other hand. [I used Texas as an example.] An off-duty Texas cop is still a “peace officer” under Texas law, and has authority to arrest for all crimes committed in his view, and has a duty to suppress riots, and is authorized to use necessary force in effectuating such duties.

A retired Texas cop, or an out-of-state cop, (a) has no greater arrest authority than any other citizen (including the aforementioned finance professionals), (b) is not a “peace officer”, (c) has no duty or authority to suppress riots, and (d) is NOT authorize to use force in effectuating arrest. I could go on.

Some argue that Nationwide concealed carry for cops is a first step towards the same rights for citizens. That’s not the way I see it. I look at it as reinforcing the mentality that not all men are created equal; and that a certain portion of society should/could/does receive special treatment under the law. In other words, I find the concept very offensive to the Constitution.

Finally, I do not believe that gun rights are a matter for debate among Congress. If Texas wants to disarm out-of-state cops, that’s up to Texas. If Texas law is going to be trumped by the Second Amendment, so be it, but such a right will necessarily apply to all (cops and finance professionals).

I do have one more point. Why just retired cops? Some states give carry rights to prosecuting attorneys; how about them. Some states treat probation officers the same as cops; how about them. Judges have carry rights in some states; why not retired judges—are they not the source of much scorn from criminals? How about all current and past members of the bar; lawyers need at least as much personal protection as anyone.

[MileHi]

Can't get behind that. Let LEOs help us secure that right for all law-abiding citizens. Then maybe we won't see them and their organization supporting some pols gungrab proposal because it won't apply to them.

[Chemist_Geek]

So, support everything positive even if you don't get a piece of it this time around.

Oh, the horror! That'll never happen, because gun rights people are the most politically tin-eared folks around. They're bound and determiend to remain a persecuted minority, demanding everything ("what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand" is one of their favorite demands) and receiving nothing.

They'll be perpetually irrelevant, and further shunned and on the outskirts of political society, unless they learn how to work the system. The gun grabbers have learned how to work the system over the last 40 years, and look how much progress they've made. It seems that a good chunk of the gun rights folks want to be marginalized so that they can have a replay of the Battle of Lexington, with them in a starring role.

I've had it with the mouthbreathing, knee-jerking, Second Amendment fetishists. They don't deserve my support and work on gun rights. Unless they learn how to not alienate everyone else, let alone their allies, they're going to continue to "lose" their rights.

[jmc813]

I've had it with the mouthbreathing, knee-jerking, Second Amendment fetishists.

Thank you for showing your true colors. I've always had my suspicions about you.

[cmsgop]

Ping

[Chemist_Geek]

Thank you for showing your true colors. I've always had my suspicions about you.

You're welcome. It's people like you and GOA who have driven me to this.

[Myrddin]

You're wrong. They're not citizens off duty. They're police officers/peace officers 24 hours a day. They are required to respond to emergencies whether they are on duty or not.

Baloney. They respond to emergencies when dispatched during their assigned shift period. Otherwise, they are off duty. The guys that are off duty do not respond to calls. They don't sit around listening to scanners and jumping into action at the first sign of something interesting. A police officer should carry when off duty, but only because he/she might encounter a criminal in the community that they have to police on a daily basis. It is only for the purpose of SELF defense, not for on duty police activity. Outside of their own jurisdiction, this justification does not apply. They are ordinary citizens. If they want to be able to carry outside the bounds of their own jurisdiction, then they need to support the same right for everyone.

[mass55th]

"A police officer should carry when off duty, but only because he/she might encounter a criminal in the community that they have to police on a daily basis."

This is what I meant actually. If they view a crime being committed, they are by law required to respond (get involved). I don't know how it is in any other state, but in New York State, because I am a Peace Officer (24 hours a day), I can purchase a handgun on my badge, and carry the same on my person. That's why I'm wondering why the need for a special Bill. Don't most police officers carry their departmental weapon while off duty? I believe they can legally since they are police officers and actually considered on call 24 hours a day.