• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

City Bans All Retired Officers from Carrying

ODA 226

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
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.”
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

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

sjalterego

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
84
Location
, ,
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.
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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*
Click to expand...
Dare I ask why you don't mind site-specific bans? Especially on public property that the public pays to build and maintain?
 
BobCav

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
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.
 
I

irfner

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
434
Location
SeaTac, Washington, USA
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?”
Click to expand...

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..
 
GWbiker

GWbiker

Guest
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
958
Location
USA
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.”
Click to expand...

Before drafting this new ordinance, did anyone in WC City Council bother to read this interesting new FEDERAL law......

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

I'm just asking...?
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.:D
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
B

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
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.
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top