Miliatry Police granted national carry privileges

WalkingWolf · Jul 27, 2013

DrTodd said:
What bothers me most about this is not that people who are currently LEOs, or now MPs, have a nationwide carry privilege, but that this is extended to RETIRED individuals.
I seem to recall that California had an exception to their "Assault Weapons" (sic) Registration law for retired LEO and that this exception was deemed by a court as violating the 14th amendment. Sorry that I can't provide more information about that such as which court, or even a link; I've searched for hours on-line but have been unable to find the case again. I read it once, moved on, and didn't think to bookmark it.

The good thing about the internet is there is so much information, it is also bad thing.

EMNofSeattle · Jul 27, 2013

DrTodd said:
What bothers me most about this is not that people who are currently LEOs, or now MPs, have a nationwide carry privilege, but that this is extended to RETIRED individuals.
I seem to recall that California had an exception to their "Assault Weapons" (sic) Registration law for retired LEO and that this exception was deemed by a court as violating the 14th amendment. Sorry that I can't provide more information about that such as which court, or even a link; I've searched for hours on-line but have been unable to find the case again. I read it once, moved on, and didn't think to bookmark it.

Retired officer aren't given retirement commissions? in Washington several departments allow their officers to post test and qualify yearly and retain their commissions after retirement...

DrTodd · Jul 27, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
Retired officer aren't given retirement commissions? in Washington several departments allow their officers to post test and qualify yearly and retain their commissions after retirement...

Can they continue to function in the same capacity: investigate crimes and have arrest power? The LEOSA differentiates between retired LEO and currently employed LEO. If they were carrying under the provision for retirees, they are no longer LEO, and it would appear to be discriminatory. Allowing an officer from Wisconsin to carry out of state when on official business is something I consider logical. Covering people that once were LEOs but now are civilians seems antithetical to the idea of equal protection. In my job, as in many other peoples jobs that interact with individuals who tend to be violent and aren't above eliminating those with whom they disagree, I have been threatened, and my family has also been threatened, by those with whom I have to deal with on a daily basis. Likewise, a person who gets a permit to carry specifically because they have been threatened with harm seems to have a need to be able to carry nationwide at least as much as a person who was once a LEO.
If retired LEO are allowed to carry nationwide, then so too should everyone else be able to do likewise.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 28, 2013

KYGlockster said:
Plenty of people here are complaining about peace officers and so forth, but if they really feel the way they do they should do what I did, and enter the profession themselves and change it from the inside. If we continue to set by and watch as tyrants take over our peace officer positions, then we will surely have a REAL standing army right here in our borders. I was sick and tired of hearing about all of the bad that was going on inside the profession so I decided I would do something about it.

LOL....no. I won't join an unconstitutional proactive institution to change it from the inside any more than I would join the KKK to change it's bigoted views from the inside.

The standing army the founders warned about is here in the form of the departments of armed to the teeth street warriors from the federal level to our local municipalities, they don't need us to join them they need us to severely restrict/limit and in many cases abolish them.

Peace Officer positions in the modern proactive stance haven't been taken over, it was not good from the very beginning.

EMNofSeattle · Jul 28, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
LOL....no. I won't join an unconstitutional proactive institution to change it from the inside any more than I would join the KKK to change it's bigoted views from the inside.

the difference is, the KKK has no governmental authority (although they at one point had members in high political positions across the country, and contrary to popular belief, had great influence outside the south) it doesn't hurt or benefit you to organize a takeover of the KKK

on the other hand, government by nature has authority, so if they're using too much authority, then the philosophy of a non-hostile takeover becomes more sensical.

besides isn't that the whole philosophy behind the "Free State Project" that libertarians are trying to run in New Hampshire? to take over the counties and install their people in government positions?

sudden valley gunner · Jul 28, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
the difference is, the KKK has no governmental authority (although they at one point had members in high political positions across the country, and contrary to popular belief, had great influence outside the south) it doesn't hurt or benefit you to organize a takeover of the KKK

on the other hand, government by nature has authority, so if they're using too much authority, then the philosophy of a non-hostile takeover becomes more sensical.

besides isn't that the whole philosophy behind the "Free State Project" that libertarians are trying to run in New Hampshire? to take over the counties and install their people in government positions?

LOL....missing the point.

Yes because libertarians want to take over government and leave you alone.....

It matters not to me whether it is the KKK or an unconstitutional proactive police department, I don't believe I have to join to change it, I'd rather see them abolished. I hear this ridiculous reasoning by the Republicans to, join and change it from the inside, which my response is well by your own logic I should join and change the democrat party too?

They also use the tired excuse of until you put on the suit or badge or ......blah blah blah.....you have no right, or you don't know.....it's all silly apology.

EMNofSeattle · Jul 28, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
LOL....missing the point.

Yes because libertarians want to take over government and leave you alone.....

It matters not to me whether it is the KKK or an unconstitutional proactive police department, I don't believe I have to join to change it, I'd rather see them abolished. I hear this ridiculous reasoning by the Republicans to, join and change it from the inside, which my response is well by your own logic I should join and change the democrat party too?

They also use the tired excuse of until you put on the suit or badge or ......blah blah blah.....you have no right, or you don't know.....it's all silly apology.

SVG are you coming to seattle wensday? off topic I know, still I'm interested in having one of these discussions in person....

I don't think I ever used the "put on a badge or you have no right argument"....

but the point of brining up the free state project was not wether liberarians will leave you alone if given government office, but that libertarians (presumably some who have similiar political ideology to you) in some circles have adopted the philosophy of taking over offices of enforcement discretion and not enforcing stuff....

sudden valley gunner · Jul 28, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
SVG are you coming to seattle wensday? off topic I know, still I'm interested in having one of these discussions in person....

I don't think I ever used the "put on a badge or you have no right argument"....

but the point of brining up the free state project was not wether liberarians will leave you alone if given government office, but that libertarians (presumably some who have similiar political ideology to you) in some circles have adopted the philosophy of taking over offices of enforcement discretion and not enforcing stuff....

Depends on work or not.

I see your point, but think elected office is slightly different than taking over an institution that has force as part of its name. There has been a push to have me run for office here in our state, I might and one reason would be to make law a shield against government not the burden it has become.

77zach · Jul 28, 2013

In theory, most or almost all government police can be abolished. This will never happen, but I just don't understand how every podunk town now has its own police department and larger podunk towns have SWAT teams. I think I could convince the average statist that we have at least triple the number of cops that we "need". They are primarily there to serve and protect the state, not you and me. If the laws being made were just, small counties could have a sheriff and a reasonable number of deputies and large cities their departments. These cops could be there to respond to actual violations of peoples' rights. They wouldn't be "looking for drugs", writing tickets for "speeding", doing gun "buybacks", running "checkpoints", swat teaming perps in homes who could easily be snatched in public with no violence and little fanfare, etc.

OC for ME · Jul 29, 2013

KYGlockster said:
<snip>

Plenty of people here are complaining about peace officers and so forth, but if they really feel the way they do they should do what I did, and enter the profession themselves and change it from the inside. If we continue to set by and watch as tyrants take over our peace officer positions, then we will surely have a REAL standing army right here in our borders. I was sick and tired of hearing about all of the bad that was going on inside the profession so I decided I would do something about it.

<snip>

I am in this profession because I want to help people and stand up for them -- nothing more, nothing less. I am one of those rare individuals that will actually give people MY advice on legal matters. I like to inform people of their rights, and if I hear that another officer infringed on their rights I am the first to inform them of it, and I will inform them of what they can and cannot do when it comes to exercising their rights. Just the other day another officer tried to claim to a passenger in a vehicle that he had to show his I.D. or else he could be arrested. I immediately clarified the facts to him and he closed his mouth and set quietly in the passenger seat, and NEVER did show his I.D.

It is amazing how ignorant people are when it comes to THEIR rights. We need the good guys and girls to enter the field so that we can educate and protect people. This job IS dangerous at times, but the danger is worth it in order to be in a position where we can make ACTUAL CHANGE.

Of course we really don't know what it is like until we enter the field; I can attest to this first-hand. MOST people that we deal with are very rude and have no regard for other people, much less other people's rights. But if people like US do not start entering this field and move it BACK towards the peace officer role, then eventually we will be living in a all-out police state. I DON'T want this, and that is why I am a PEACE officer.

I refused to set on the sidelines while the position of peace officer turned into a full-blown LEO position.

You want to help people, start ratting out those rights abusing thugs in your own workplace. Start with that nitwit who threatened, under the color of law, a citizen with arrest. There are far more nitwit citizens than there are nitwit cops. So, with a much much smaller demographic it would be easier to fix LE than it would be to fix the citizenry.

Clean your own house before you invite guests over.

Besides, I was talking about LEOSA and not active duty cops. I could not have been any more clear.

Once you are no longer a active duty cop you are a civilian. No special bennies for you cuz I don't get them either.

rushcreek2 · Jul 29, 2013

paramedic70002 said:
Someone please correct me if I a m wrong here, I was under the impression that the present day MP's duties had changed substantially from the traditional. Supposedly they are mostly concerned with rounding up enemy combatants after the assault wave has gone through, and interring them in POW camps. So how does this translate to civilian need?

I am acquainted with a COP who is a retired U.S. Coast Guard CPO . Spent many of those 22 years in search & rescue, K-9/ drug interdiction. He is now applying all of that experience as a Deputy Sheriff in one very lucky West Texas County.

He was not your the typical " MP/SP/AP" of course, but he was law enforcement.

Flounder · Jul 29, 2013

KYGlockster said:
If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt then that is their prerogative. To be honest I rarely wear mine, because I have seen first-hand the damage that the restraint device can cause.

Now I have to ask, as someone who is involved with accident responses with the Fire Department, along with my dad and brother, I agree there can be damage from the restraint device. How is that damage NOT worth enduring to keep your life? We deal with Accidents on I-71 all the time in KY, and without a seatbelt the risk of death is significantly higher. Very, very rarely does someone who is not wearing a seat belt stay safe in their vehicle, ejection is a common occurrence. Are you saying its safer to be ejected that to wear the belt?

OC for ME · Jul 29, 2013

rushcreek2 said:
I am acquainted with a COP who is a retired U.S. Coast Guard CPO . Spent many of those 22 years in search & rescue, K-9/ drug interdiction. He is now applying all of that experience as a Deputy Sheriff in one very lucky West Texas County.

He was not your the typical " MP/SP/AP" of course, but he was law enforcement.

Coast Guard is LE. They fall under the Dept. of Transportation. My oldest son is in the USCG and he told me that once he made E-5 that he is "technically" LE even though he is a computer geek by job description. Oversimplification? Maybe. I'll take his word for it on the LE thing.

Locals/sheriffs should be dropping off wayward soldiers/sailors at the brig/stockade. MPs should not be sent off base to retrieve them. MPs are not "cops."

skidmark · Jul 29, 2013

A good argument against, based on constitutional grounds and basic principles that do not involve whining.

By Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit):

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT GIVING SPECIAL GUN-CARRYING RULES TO RETIRED COPS violates the Constitution’s ban on titles of nobility. Special rights to bear arms were one of the chief characteristics of titles of nobility, which were by no means always hereditary.

(posted by Instapundit in response to http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...lians-are-more-equal-than-others-again-still/

Why is there a concealed carry carve-out for retired cops and, now, military police (with ten years service)? It’s bad enough that active cops and military po-po get “special permission” to carry a gun anywhere in the U.S. without worrying about local or state licensing requirements. Because there shouldn’t be any. But why should the fuzz and friends continue to enjoy this privilege—for that is what it is—after they retire? Because they have potentially deadly enemies? I’ve been divorced twice. Because former police and military employees are better trained and more trustworthy than “normal” civilians? I don’t think so. And if former cops and soldiers are handier with handguns . . .

how about a law “allowing” law-abiding citizens to train up to their standard [sic] for go-anywhere reciprocity? H.R. 218 is unfair, unAmerican and unconscionable.

which seems to ignore the "fact" that many "civillians" train more, and more often, than the police.)

I wonder if any of our members who are covered by LEOSA would care to rebut that specific argument. Any takers?

stay safe.

OC for ME · Jul 29, 2013

Why would any LEOSA beneficiary wade into this mud hole? They got theirs.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 29, 2013

skidmark said:
A good argument against, based on constitutional grounds and basic principles that do not involve whining.

By Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit):

(posted by Instapundit in response to http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...lians-are-more-equal-than-others-again-still/

which seems to ignore the "fact" that many "civillians" train more, and more often, than the police.)

I wonder if any of our members who are covered by LEOSA would care to rebut that specific argument. Any takers?

stay safe.

Along those lines I don't address them by their pseudo militaristic rankings either.

PALO · Jul 29, 2013

Constitutional carry SHOULD be the law of the land, but it is not. As an instructor to both LEO's and non-cops, I can state from experience that the average cop is just "ok" with their firearms. Maybe about 10-20 % are highly skilled, but most are just "decent'. The average noncop firearms enthusiast shoots more and is more skilled with their firearm than the average cop

Imo it's a good thing that more people are being granted right to carry privileges, but in a perfect world it wouldn't just be cops and MP's.

Maybe one day universal carry will be the law of the land. At least we are moving towards more and more states going to "shall issue" and or constitutional carry

The stats don't lie and they show that noncop firearms carriers (CCW's etc. and not people who are criminals e.g. convicted felons) are plenty prudent with their firearms and it should be that in EVERY state they are allowed to carry.

Maybe someday

sudden valley gunner · Jul 30, 2013

PALO said:
Constitutional carry SHOULD be the law of the land, but it is not. As an instructor to both LEO's and non-cops, I can state from experience that the average cop is just "ok" with their firearms. Maybe about 10-20 % are highly skilled, but most are just "decent'. The average noncop firearms enthusiast shoots more and is more skilled with their firearm than the average cop

Imo it's a good thing that more people are being granted right to carry privileges, but in a perfect world it wouldn't just be cops and MP's.

Maybe one day universal carry will be the law of the land. At least we are moving towards more and more states going to "shall issue" and or constitutional carry

The stats don't lie and they show that noncop firearms carriers (CCW's etc. and not people who are criminals e.g. convicted felons) are plenty prudent with their firearms and it should be that in EVERY state they are allowed to carry.

Maybe someday

Constitutional carry is the law of the land regardless of what the rules say..... it just depends on how brave you are in wanting to exercise your rights.........unfortunately too much proactive policing willing to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Yep the stats do show citizens are better they have way less collateral damage when put into situation they use their firearms.

Miliatry Police granted national carry privileges

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

77zach

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

rushcreek2

Regular Member

Flounder

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

OC for ME

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

PALO

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member