Vernon County Fair IS POSTED, NO GUNS

Doug Huffman said:

COPS HAVE NO RIGHTS AS COPS, BUT ONLY THE POWERS THAT WE DELEGATE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

Click to expand...

What it comes down to for me is this: the laws are the laws. we have to follow them and we're accountable if we break them even if we don't know them or misunderstand them. so do the police. more so, in my opinion, since they're the ones "enforcing" (i know that's debatable on several levels) them. and we, as citizens, have to hold them accountable when they break the law.

Interceptor_Knight said:

It is a privilege, the same as any other CCW permit. It requires annual training where many CCW permits only require it every 3 years, etc... It is forced national reciprocity. It does not have an enforcement clause should a State refuse to provide the training.

Click to expand...

From the testimony at the Congressional Hearing for HR218:
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you
in convening the hearing on H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2003. The bill authorizes ‘‘qualified’’ active and
retired Federal and State law enforcement officials to carry concealed
weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws
prohibiting or regulating such carriage.
A law enforcement officer includes corrections, probation, parole,
and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriff, and other law enforcement
officers who have had or who have statutory power over
arrest and who were or are engaged through employment by a governmental
entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision,
prosecution, or incarceration of law violators.

IT is a Right not a privilege:

Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to
allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off
duty, even within their jurisdiction?
Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe
it would mandate.
Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the
right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision
otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction?
Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would.

there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.

The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws. Thus, LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.

Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the definitions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.

J.Gleason said:

IT is a Right not a privilege:

Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to
allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off
duty, even within their jurisdiction?
Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe
it would mandate.
Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the
right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision
otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction?
Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would.

Click to expand...

A right isn't a right because someone calls it a right........ Rights aren't granted, privleges are.

You don't get a right for being someone special, like a cop, you get a privlege. Furthermore, congress can repeal the bill if they'd like. Same as I can let you on my property one day and decide you can't be on there the next. You have no right to be on my property, I granted you the privlege.

Should it be a right for ANYONE to carry wherever they want? I think so; but our government doesn't view it that way so they have gotten themselves a special privlege, no rights here.

Brass Magnet said:

A right isn't a right because someone calls it a right........ Rights aren't granted, privleges are.

You don't get a right for being someone special, like a cop, you get a privlege. Furthermore, congress can repeal the bill if they'd like. Same as I can let you on my property one day and decide you can't be on there the next. You have no right to be on my property, I granted you the privlege.

Should it be a right for ANYONE to carry wherever they want? I think so; but our government doesn't view it that way so they have gotten themselves a special privlege, no rights here.

Click to expand...

No point in arguing this with any of you. You have all the answers. So I will just go on doing what I have the "Right" to do. That "Right" granted to me by Congress.

J.Gleason said:

No point in arguing this with any of you. You have all the answers. So I will just go on doing what I have the "Right" to do. That "Right" granted to me by Congress.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be that way about it. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. It's just important to me, and should be to everyone, that "Right" is used in the proper context.

My point is that if you are the only person to have it, or among a specific group of people that has it, but it's denied to everyone else, how can it be a right?

You are born with all the rights you will ever have. Since this right is denied to some of us but given to others like you, it becomes a privlege. Doesn't that make sense?

I think you are just looking at this through rose colored glasses because you are one of the privleged few.

Brass Magnet said:

You don't have to be that way about it. I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything. It's just important to me, and should be to everyone, that "Right" is used in the proper context.

My point is that if you are the only person to have it, or among a specific group of people that has it, but it's denied to everyone else, how can it be a right?

You are born with all the rights you will ever have. Since this right is denied to some of us but given to others like you, it becomes a privlege. Doesn't that make sense?

I think you are just looking at this through rose colored glasses because you are one of the privleged few.

Click to expand...

First off I don't feel privileged. It is not a Constitutional Right or an inherent Right. It is a Right granted by Congress through a federal law. It is the only way that Congress could do it and override state laws that would restrict it. But I don't think I need to explain that to you as you are well aware of how things work.

I know some would say I'm arguing semantics here but; if it's "granted" how is it a right?


In totality though, I actually agree that it should be a right; an inherrent right though; and one that isn't reserved for LEO's nor "granted" by congress to a privileged few.

9a
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

THAT^ is how you get around state law.

I'll add this for others that may be watching the conversation. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Right+Vs.+Privilege

If I posted a no Guns sign on my property I would expect that restriction to be followed even by LEO, even more so because they are the enforcers. I think to politely question them and bring up the issue of privilege they feel they have to carry is legitimate. I think it is also valid to point that out to property owners, a blanket restriction is just that. Officers have a greater responsibility to obey the law both on and off duty.

The interaction I have had with the Viroqua police Department keep me from traveling in that town any more than I need to. They are the LAW and if you don't believe it just ask them. You will get railroaded right through their Golf Course Buddy municipal Court. And the person on here that said LEO are the best liars must have been in that court. I paid my little fine but that incident and the lies that officer told have forever changed my level of respect for LEO. I can't speak about the County officers there, just the city.