Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 164

Thread: City Bans All Retired Officers from Carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member ODA 226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Etzenricht, Germany
    Posts
    1,598

    Post imported post


    San Gabriel Valley Tribune

    April 03, 2008

    WEST COVINA, CA – The city voted to ban people from bringing weapons into City Hall on Tuesday.

    The ordinance explicitly includes a ban on retired law enforcement personnel carrying weapons, a fact that did not sit well with former police officers and government agents who spoke at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

    “You are shortchanging the security of retired officers, and of the general public,” said Forrest Wilkins, a retired Los Angeles Police Department officer. “An armed officer is a person who can assist if something goes wrong.”

    Chief Frank Wills, who helped draft the ordinance, said the city has not issued any weapons permits to citizens that would have allowed them to carry weapons to the meeting. He added that the Sheriff’s Department, which can also issue permits, has given permits to at least two West Covina residents.

    Wills said, however, that the ordinance will not target just retired law enforcement since it also bans other kinds of weapons, and would apply to citizens of neighboring cities with weapons permits.

    City officials said they were concerned about possible threats against council members and staff as reasons for the new law.

    Council members Steve Herfert and Shelley Sanderson and Mayor Sherri Lane, who each voted in favor of the ordinance, said it was not intended to target law enforcement but rather to make everyone safer.

    “I was surprised when speakers came up to make an issue out of this,” said Sanderson. “This is about public safety.”

    Fred Sykes, a former West Covina police officer and a former council candidate, called the ordinance an insult. Sykes said he takes his gun everywhere he goes, including most City Council meetings.

    “This ordinance treats us like sex offenders and criminals, taking away our rights,” he said. “Why would they show such disrespect for West Covina peace officers?”

    Wills also said he would prefer if the ordinance did not include retired law enforcement.

    “If I was sitting where you do,” said Wills, “I’d allow the retired officers to keep their arms.”
    Bitka Sve Reava!
    B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    “I was surprised when speakers came up to make an issue out of this,” said [Shelley] Sanderson. “This is about public safety.”
    Of course it is. Who could be against safety.

    Also, Mayor Sherri Lane et al says it is to make everyone safer.

    August 26, 1920 the 19th Amendment passed - we have been going in the wrong direction ever since.... I'm just sayin'

    City officials said they were concerned about possible threats against council members and staff as reasons for the new law.
    Well, follow the US Constitution and quit pissin' off the people and you wouldn't have anything of which to be afraid. The gov't SHOULD be afraid of the people. It is what keeps the gov't honest. Instead of understanding this the gov't passes laws to protect and insulate themselves from the people.

    On a "just don't get it scale" this ranks a 9.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    Well I don't have much of a problem with site specific bans such as this, banning the carrying of firearms into City Hall.

    What makes me laugh are the reactions of the Retired Police. How often do they need to go to City Hall? They make it sound like they will be attacked every time they go to city hall. The restriction is only to City Hall not a general prohibition if I am reading the article correctly.

    Also, I appreciate the fact that the more retired LEO's there are who are armed the safer we are likely to be. However, that argument also works for just plain old civilians. I like it that LEO's get to feel what it's like to be unarmed and unable to arm oneself.

    There are generally two justifications for allowing active LEO's to carry concealed when off duty and retired LEO's to carry concealed: to increase public safety and for the officers' protection since they are at greater risk of attack from old grudge bearing criminals.

    As to the first, I agree but don't think that justifies limiting CCW only to LEO's. Citizens should be allowed to carry as well.

    As to the second, I don't agree. I've been told this but no one has ever provided any statistics indicating that retired LEO's are at any statistically greater risk of being accosted or attacked by criminals for any reason. This excuse is purely bogus.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    sjalterego wrote:
    Well I don't have much of a problem with site specific bans such as this, banning the carrying of firearms into City Hall.

    *snip*
    Dare I ask why you don't mind site-specific bans? Especially on public property that the public pays to build and maintain?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Honest government officials have nothing to fear...that's the whole point!

    Ain't it great how the 2A is such an amazinghypocrite and fraud detector as well!!

    God how I Love America!



    Honest Officials do not fear honest citizens.

    Honest Officialsrightly fear dishonest citizens, but arealso protected by honest citizens.

    Dishonest Officials fear both honest and dishonest citizens. Their only solution is to disarm everyone.



  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    ODA 226 wrote:

    “This ordinance treats us like sex offenders and criminals, taking away our rights,” he said. “Why would they show such disrespect for West Covina peace officers?”
    So whats the problem? This is the way law abiding citizens have been treated for years. I guess it just hurts to discover you are not special anymore.

    As for city hall, abolish the constitution. After all you are doing it for safety. What are rights compared to safety? Heck if it worksfor city hall it might work everywhere. For safety..

  7. #7
    Guest
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    958

    Post imported post

    ODA 226 wrote:
    San Gabriel Valley Tribune

    April 03, 2008

    WEST COVINA, CA – The city voted to ban people from bringing weapons into City Hall on Tuesday.

    The ordinance explicitly includes a ban on retired law enforcement personnel carrying weapons, a fact that did not sit well with former police officers and government agents who spoke at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

    “You are shortchanging the security of retired officers, and of the general public,” said Forrest Wilkins, a retired Los Angeles Police Department officer. “An armed officer is a person who can assist if something goes wrong.”

    Chief Frank Wills, who helped draft the ordinance, said the city has not issued any weapons permits to citizens that would have allowed them to carry weapons to the meeting. He added that the Sheriff’s Department, which can also issue permits, has given permits to at least two West Covina residents.

    Wills said, however, that the ordinance will not target just retired law enforcement since it also bans other kinds of weapons, and would apply to citizens of neighboring cities with weapons permits.

    City officials said they were concerned about possible threats against council members and staff as reasons for the new law.

    Council members Steve Herfert and Shelley Sanderson and Mayor Sherri Lane, who each voted in favor of the ordinance, said it was not intended to target law enforcement but rather to make everyone safer.

    “I was surprised when speakers came up to make an issue out of this,” said Sanderson. “This is about public safety.”

    Fred Sykes, a former West Covina police officer and a former council candidate, called the ordinance an insult. Sykes said he takes his gun everywhere he goes, including most City Council meetings.

    “This ordinance treats us like sex offenders and criminals, taking away our rights,” he said. “Why would they show such disrespect for West Covina peace officers?”

    Wills also said he would prefer if the ordinance did not include retired law enforcement.

    “If I was sitting where you do,” said Wills, “I’d allow the retired officers to keep their arms.”
    Before drafting this new ordinance, did anyone in WC City Council bother to read this interesting new FEDERAL law......

    http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legisla...8/hr218faq.pdf

    I'm just asking...?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I can understand the retired cops feeling the way they do.

    It is kinda nice to be allowed to do something that many others cannot. Honestly... this is they society we live in and having a special privilege granted to you is cool. Admit it!!

    But besides that. I do understand the old argument that citizens with guns can make for a safer society. In part this is so true. But we have to remember that ANY citizen can carry a gun. Absolutely NO qualifications required and no proof that they can even shoot straight.

    Hear me out before you flame me...

    A LEO is granted permission to carry based on his current/former employment and can now doso almost everywhere. This is all becauseofthe training he has received and thehas provenhe could be trusted with the lives of other. Citizens simply do not have the same training or prove they are responsible.


    A LEO current or retiredhas been checked out from top to bottom. Those that can make 25 or 30 years on the job must have done something right not to get fired. A LEO that is armed is free security for every location that he goes to because he is going to probably jump in and help out.This is what he was trained to do for 20 + years.

    Once a LEO.. always a LEO.

    So to tell a LEO that he cannot be trusted anymore after all those years of faithful service and he cannot carry a gun because he could be a risk to others is a serious slap in the face. Even if the LEOwould NEVER step foot in city hall... just to know that someone is saying that a retired LEO cannot be trusted it just rotten.

    House Bill 218 was created for a reason. Armed LEOs in any state are a absolute benefit to the public. As I said..... anyone can carry a gun and an armed citizen can save a life. But I have seen a great many things said here to suggest that not all armed citizens really make the right decisions or lack a sound decision making process.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO *******

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    This ordinance is preempted by state regulation on the same topic. People with LTCs, active and retirees with ccw endorsement may carry in state and local government buildings PC 171b. I'm sure the W. Covina POA will sue.

    I find humor however in that the "select" privileged armed persons of CA government society are getting dissed by their own.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Either we are equal or we are not.

    Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO ****

    LEO 229 has single handedly hardened my heart to flint.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    When I was an officer while off duty I was approached by a juvenile I arrested while at the gym. He came up to me and told me ,"I'm watching". If I was an ordinary citizen I doubt that would have happened considering I wouldn't have arrested him. We had a first Sgt. off duty who got recognized by a guy and the guy tried to break into his house. It happens all the time. Most cops live in the area they police, some are even required. I'm glad you "like it that LEO's get to feel what it's like to be unarmed". I keep wondering why the big chip on everybody's shoulder against LE here, still not getting it. It's interesting that people are for the 2nd amend. but if anything is against cops then they change their minds. Talk about not being a true supporter of the constitution.
    This is very true. Citizens go about their lives and most are never noticed or remembered by anyone.

    But a LEO stops people everyday and will make a huge impression and not forgotten so easily. Many will beupset for being arrested or given a traffic ticket. And then you have the career criminals that get out with a vengeance!

    How many enemies does an average citizen have? Now how many does a LEO have? Since a LEO can write at least two tickets a day that comes to 520 new "friends" a year. Then x 20 years... 10,400 people that love the LEO and will cross his path again. The LEO has a genuine concern for his safety.

    But what I love is when people bitch that a LEOshould not be given any more rights to carry over a citizen. People hate it when someone can do what they cannot.

    Either we are equal or we are not... Sorry.. But we are all different and not everything is equal. I would love to get the same pay as the Sheriff... but that is not how it works.

    We do not live in a socialist society.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    When I was an officer while off duty I was approached by a juvenile I arrested while at the gym. He came up to me and told me ,"I'm watching". If I was an ordinary citizen I doubt that would have happened considering I wouldn't have arrested him. We had a first Sgt. off duty who got recognized by a guy and the guy tried to break into his house. It happens all the time. Most cops live in the area they police, some are even required. I'm glad you "like it that LEO's get to feel what it's like to be unarmed". I keep wondering why the big chip on everybody's shoulder against LE here, still not getting it. It's interesting that people are for the 2nd amend. but if anything is against cops then they change their minds. Talk about not being a true supporter of the constitution.
    While it's true that there's a very real interest in giving LEOs and retired LEOs the ability to defend themselves against people who they have pissed off through, oh, arresting them or their family member(s) (presumably for good reason)... that threat exists for many other citizens as well. Aside from the obvious citizens, like witnesses and complainants, many other citizens have people who might be out to get them, so to speak. LEOs aren't the only people who deal with dangerous individuals. IMHO, the arugment works for granting expansive carry rights to most people, not LEOs exclusively.


    I believe most of the perceived anti-LEO statements on here just come off wrong. Granted, there are some members who have it out for the police... but most of those who express discontent for LEOs take issue with how LEOs are generally treated as a "special" class of people. No, that isn't the fault of LEOs themselves (in general), but of a system that gives them this distinction. Non-LEOs see LEOs getting "professional courtesy" when suspected of crimes, along with a slew of other special "privileges". I'd also think it's fair to say that LEOs generally take this special treatment for granted. What is being expressed in regard to this story is how LEOs pay more attention to the rights denied to Non-LEOs when they can no longer use their privileged status.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    LEO229,

    I'm going to do something that I don't do often. I'm actually going to agree with you, yet again. I think it's a slap in the face as well. From what your saying that privlidge is an unspoken fringe benefit of doing a job well done for many many years. Sort of like being able to use the base exchange when you retire and a variety of other perks entilted to vets who put in their 20.

    I imagine the rub you'll get from everyone else on the flip side of that coin is that it only takes one a-hole to ruin it for everyone else, LEO's are no exception to that phenomenon as occupations go now are they? I think it was you that stated in another thread that LEO's are prone to the same errors and phallicies as everyday citizens as well, because they are human just like everyday citizens. I believe that is what most people here acknowledge as well, with the handful of exceptions on either side of that fence.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    While it's true that there's a very real interest in giving LEOs and retired LEOs the ability to defend themselves against people who they have pissed off through, oh, arresting them or their family member(s) (presumably for good reason)... that threat exists for many other citizens as well. Aside from the obvious citizens, like witnesses and complainants, many other citizens have people who might be out to get them, so to speak. LEOs aren't the only people who deal with dangerous individuals. IMHO, the arugment works for granting expansive carry rights to most people, not LEOs exclusively.


    I believe most of the perceived anti-LEO statements on here just come off wrong. Granted, there are some members who have it out for the police... but most of those who express discontent for LEOs take issue with how LEOs are generally treated as a "special" class of people. No, that isn't the fault of LEOs themselves (in general), but of a system that gives them this distinction. Non-LEOs see LEOs getting "professional courtesy" when suspected of crimes, along with a slew of other special "privileges". I'd also think it's fair to say that LEOs generally take this special treatment for granted. What is being expressed in regard to this story is how LEOs pay more attention to the rights denied to Non-LEOs when they can no longer use their privileged status.
    Not going to argue that some civilians need protection too and should be armed. We live in a dangerous world.

    This is more abouttrust being revoked that has been earned over 20 + years.

    In regards to privileges... if you want to complain about cops getting a free cup of coffee or what ever.. how about where you work?

    Every employee at all the cell phone provides get free phone service and reduced cost on phones. Is that fair?

    People that work at fast food places get a free meal. Is that fair?

    Do cops get out of tickets... sometimes. But so do citizens. Have you ever heard of a warning ticket? Should we stop using them and give everyone a ticket from now on?

    Being a LEO does not make you a better "class" of people. You are in a job that is highly regarded and often very respected or admired. Just like a fireman or doctor. It is a job.. nota class.

    Some see this"class" and they are simply jealous that they are not getting the same treatment. We live in America and all can apply for the job and get those benefits.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    nitrovic, we're absolutely NOT anti-LEO as you're so fond of saying.Yes, we do have some people that have been severely wronged by LEO's and have no bones about saying so. That's their issue. We do not ban individuals here. Hell, we have some folks here that are quite obviously ANTI-NRA (Right Doug! ), but that doesn't make us an ANTI-NRA forum.

    We arePro-America, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Liberty andPro-Individual.We are alsoanti-corruption, anti-abuse of power, anti-special privileges, anti-tyranny and most certainlyanti-********. Manyhere are prior military and know first hand what it means to defend the Constitution with our verylives. I retired after 20 years in the Navy and missed an awful lot of holidays, birthdays, anniversaries and family time in those 20 years. And lost my share of friends.

    We aremore involved in our community and our society than most citizens and even most other gun forums and it's not because we have a vested financial interest. It's because we have an actual passion for America; for what is right. For this incredible idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. It's nothing more thanbeingRESPONSIBLE CITIZENS andone look around will show that more and more Americans are finally opening their eyes and not taking abuses of power from anyone anymore. It's not new and it's not only here.

    Sorry, but I can't list the names of the hundred or so LEO's that have seen me OC, knew the law and continued onabout their business. But you can take it to the bank that as sure as I've condemned those who wronged me, I have equally commended those who have righted me! In fact, the only entries I've had reason to make on RateMyCop.com were both commendations.

    We do happen to see and report more of those abuses than most citizens because of thenature of what we doas Open Carriers. That is;weinteract with the Police and government officials more often than most citizens. Unfortunately,more often than notthat interaction is caused by THEM notknowing the very laws they're sworn to enforce! I and many others heredo not and will not buy the "you MIGHT be dangerous" argument and neither do the courts. We don't make the laws, but we have to obey them, just like everyone else. And we certainly can't just make them up as we go.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Going to agree with Bob...

    I have met a bunch of guys here and they are all good people. Almost all respect LEOs and only want to be treated properly. Those that hate cops seem to never show their face at meetings. They hide behind their screens and muster up courage to talk trash.

    There are only a few members here that clearly hate cops and they do not hide it. I few are in denial but is still shows.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    I didn't say "anti-LEO" on this post. I said "leo issue". The poster prior answered it pretty well.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    nitrovic wrote:
    sjalterego wrote:
    Well I don't have much of a problem with site specific bans such as this, banning the carrying of firearms into City Hall.

    What makes me laugh are the reactions of the Retired Police. How often do they need to go to City Hall? They make it sound like they will be attacked every time they go to city hall. The restriction is only to City Hall not a general prohibition if I am reading the article correctly.

    Also, I appreciate the fact that the more retired LEO's there are who are armed the safer we are likely to be. However, that argument also works for just plain old civilians. I like it that LEO's get to feel what it's like to be unarmed and unable to arm oneself.

    There are generally two justifications for allowing active LEO's to carry concealed when off duty and retired LEO's to carry concealed: to increase public safety and for the officers' protection since they are at greater risk of attack from old grudge bearing criminals.

    As to the first, I agree but don't think that justifies limiting CCW only to LEO's. Citizens should be allowed to carry as well.

    As to the second, I don't agree. I've been told this but no one has ever provided any statistics indicating that retired LEO's are at any statistically greater risk of being accosted or attacked by criminals for any reason. This excuse is purely bogus.

    When I was an officer while off duty I was approached by a juvenile I arrested while at the gym. He came up to me and told me ,"I'm watching". If I was an ordinary citizen I doubt that would have happened considering I wouldn't have arrested him. We had a first Sgt. off duty who got recognized by a guy and the guy tried to break into his house. It happens all the time. Most cops live in the area they police, some are even required. I'm glad you "like it that LEO's get to feel what it's like to be unarmed". I keep wondering why the big chip on everybody's shoulder against LE here, still not getting it. It's interesting that people are for the 2nd amend. but if anything is against cops then they change their minds. Talk about not being a true supporter of the constitution.
    People have a chip on their shoulders against cops because they think they should be the only one allowed to carry firearms. The rest of us get to be second class citizens. As for this "superior" training cops get it doesn't make me very confident that they are any better at handling guns than the rest of us. The cops in mytown only qualify once a year. I practice at least one a month usually more with my carry gun. So I not convinced that the average cop has superior skill with firearms.




  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Well said BobCav

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •