dixidawg
NES Member
I don't care what you call it. That is gun rights with cops becoming a favored class.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Amend LEOSA for C.O's
- Thread starter Stock weld
- Start date
I don't care what you call it. That is gun rights with cops becoming a favored class.
I love how the very accurate and well thought out comment by economist is ignored. Notice the only ones arguing for it at this point are jaded and pushing a special perk agenda. Who do you really think you are kidding needing to carry anymore than anyone else when you travel outside of your work/regional area. So you're going to tell me a mass Leo of any shape has higher risks in nj, Chicago, or CA? Give me a break it's all about that two tier system. Notice the difference in attitudes on the otherside. I'm confident that shows in how people caught up in the law are treated.
I'm not going to say anymore about who I know that worked at Somers. He never worried and I came to learn why he probably never had issues even though he had many encounters. I know COs from Hampshire and Franklin county and they don't worry. I've been in all 4 western jails (on business) and can see why some are concerned and might have issues. Treat them like dogshit and you will always be looking over your shoulder. I'm sure the same goes for cops. I'm not sugar coating the jail and prison population one bit but most times for someone who's made it out, to come after you and only you... There's a reason.
I'm not going to say anymore about who I know that worked at Somers. He never worried and I came to learn why he probably never had issues even though he had many encounters. I know COs from Hampshire and Franklin county and they don't worry. I've been in all 4 western jails (on business) and can see why some are concerned and might have issues. Treat them like dogshit and you will always be looking over your shoulder. I'm sure the same goes for cops. I'm not sugar coating the jail and prison population one bit but most times for someone who's made it out, to come after you and only you... There's a reason.
If they're dangerous, they shouldn't be let out.
If they're dangerous, and they've been let out, then we all have to deal with them, even when we're not in our home state.
That's disgusting and offensive. Anyone who took an oath to defend The Constitution should be outraged by that.
StevieP
NES Member
Put me in the "guns rights for all" camp. While I agree with Officerobie59 that you *may* be at higher risk, you signed on for that risk.
nfw should LEO's, CO's, or any other "O" get perks above and beyond us plebes. high-cap mag exemption? bullshit. any gun you want even if it's not on Martha's lists? bullshit. Nationwide CCW while we can't? bullshit.
Drive out of state, you're no longer a LEO or CO. You're just a citizen like the rest of us, and deserve NO special treatment. Sorry if that gets your blue panties in a wad, it's just how I feel. If you want extra priveleges, then ask for them for everyone else, too. By even "asking" for more privileges, you're driving a wedge between yourselves and everyone else.
nfw should LEO's, CO's, or any other "O" get perks above and beyond us plebes. high-cap mag exemption? bullshit. any gun you want even if it's not on Martha's lists? bullshit. Nationwide CCW while we can't? bullshit.
Drive out of state, you're no longer a LEO or CO. You're just a citizen like the rest of us, and deserve NO special treatment. Sorry if that gets your blue panties in a wad, it's just how I feel. If you want extra priveleges, then ask for them for everyone else, too. By even "asking" for more privileges, you're driving a wedge between yourselves and everyone else.
Bingo
Kisspik002
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,998
- Likes
- 507
Well if you don't like how mass does things move....it's not that simple yes we are cops and signed up for the job, when I'm in NH Xmas shopping an hour from home and I'm carrying under LEOSA if I see something you bet your ass I'm gonna intervene. I understand once we leave our state our powers are gone, truth be told while I again agree that everyone should have the right, don't shit on cops or LEOs be use they can exercise that right. Call your elected officials and try to get it changed I'm a CO and a cop and I call few times a week. Just because I can carry my gun over a state line doesn't mean I'm High and mighty it means as a public servant I have the right too. Just like I BELIEVE we ALL SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY ANYWHERE, but the fact is these elected idiots of this state and many others will never go for a nationwide CCW.
my argument plan and simple is don't shit on LEOs becuase they can, I understand and agree with your point but can't stand when people shit on LEOs and call us better than the rest.
my argument plan and simple is don't shit on LEOs becuase they can, I understand and agree with your point but can't stand when people shit on LEOs and call us better than the rest.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Not always true.
Always true.
Nationwide CCW makes me uneasy, though, at least if I'm understanding people correctly when they talk about it. Nationwide CCW to me suggests a federal shall-issue permit which preempts all state permits, or lack there of. What the federal government giveth, the federal government can taketh away. Rather than nationwide ccw, I'd rather see state-level carry restrictions picked away through court cases until nothing remains. It just seems "safer" from a rights perspective to me to be able carry because no laws say you can't, rather than being able to carry because one law says you can.
And I agree with you 1000 percent.
But this thread (and what I'm talking about) is adding CO's to LEOSA. You want to argue gun rights, you are not going to find ANY objections with me as I believe it is a right given to me by my creator not a politician.
But in the case of LEOSA, yes I think CO's should be added.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
dixidawg
NES Member
You can't have it both ways. If LEOSA creates a privileged class, then LEOSA is wrong. Adding another subset to that class does not make it right.
If you want to add to LEOSA, add all free human beings.
If you want to add to LEOSA, add all free human beings.
Doesn't the second Amendment preempt all of the states like the first does? You cannot regulate speech differently state to state. You can set limits on speech across the board ( the fire theater thing), but all states have to recognize 1A because the BOR is Supreme and trumps all state laws.
ETA: I do agree, the best way would be to have an educated public and pols who would set a standard of national reciprocity by all states saying we accept each other's licenses, but that is if you believe a right should be licensed at all.
I swear I saw you post this before.
I personally was talking about nationwide constitutional carry. If we are talking hypotheticals might as well talk about ideal situtations.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Should it? Yes.
Does it? No.
If you're talking about nationwide constitutional carry, I'm all for that. I apologize for misinterpreting. When I read CCW, I think of CCW permits/license, or of actual concealed carry weapons (still can't figure out when CCW started being used to refer to the license rather than the weapon, but that's a topic for another thread).
Last edited:
You should talk to that goat fellator O'Connell, the licensing officer in Somerville. He is, daily. Seriously, open your eyes.
- - - Updated - - -
It's really sad that this is true. Absolutes aren't so absolute it seems.
Now, I never took a constitutional law class but...
Isn't that what the 2A already is?
Sadly you are correct. States rights when it comes to restricting freedom, Federal Supremacy when it comes to restricting freedom.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Please stop spreading this crap. Anti's use this all the time as well, it's actually one of their favorite and most effective arguments to use to justify "reasonable restrictions". But it's complete bullshit. There is NO law against yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is only liability if you yell fire, it actually causes a panic, and there are damages or injuries as a result.
- - - Updated - - -
Um, didn't you just agree with me that it doesn't work that way in reality, like just 5 minutes before you posted this question?
Is there not criminal liability for speech that causes direct mayhem, destruction, or injury? Such as inciting a group to riot, or publically calling for the murder of someone?
- - - Updated - - -
My question is, isn't the 2A already "constitutional carry"? If we already have it, we don't need it, and history has proven it won't work anyway because people will in fact act to limit it.
How do you envision constitutional carry as different from the 2A? Maybe that's where I'm not understanding you.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Yes, but something bad has to happen. If nothing bad happens, there's no liability. Unlike with "reasonable restrictions" on firearms, where a crime can exist absent any negative result. That's what I'm driving at. Anti's say all the time that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is against the law. By itself, absent any negative result, it's 100% legal.
Carrying a copy of HR218 might help
ochmude
Marine Veteran
Okay, I think I see the confusion. I was trying to say that nationwide CCW is not something I'd favor, because it implies a permitting system in my mind. Nationwide constitutional carry it preferable to me because it requires the elimination of all permitting systems. As the vast majority of NES members can attest, though, the mere existence of the 2A doesn't translate into constitutional carry. Not until all permitting/licensing systems are removed from the equation. I wouldn't trust any permitting system, even a nationwide shall-issue system.
Ah, interesting, I didn't know that. I thought it was a criminal act and to be honest I never thought about how it would have created an imposition on the first amendment.
Got it. I agree with you. In my mind permitting in and of itself implies privileges are being conferred. It also creates a registry with information on every person with a gun. I don't like that at all.
I am not in general in favor of special privileges. I believe a valid permit in one state should entitle you to carry in another state, if that is the route we go - barring a finding of Constitutional carry. That being said, I have spent my fair share of time interacting with individuals who are incarcerated, as well as deputy sheriffs and CO's. My take, there are a lot of "non" violent inmates who go in and come out hardened criminals. Look at a Board of Probation Record and you can see the instances of violence start after a non-violent offender does their first real stretch in the HOC or Prison. If LEOSA is to remain the law of the land, than CO's should be included. That being said we could skip the middleman and move to a shall issue model with full faith and credit protections.
Completely agree.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
StevieP
NES Member
Dude I've got diet coke all over my keyboard and coming out my nose after reading that.
"Higher standard?" With all respect due to people who actually hold themselves up to this "higher standard" **** YOU. The "brotherhood of the thin blue line" pretty much guarantees that the REST of the brotherhood will cover up, lie, and, well, generally screw over everyone else if they have to, to protect their "brothers" regardless of what they actually do, much of which isn't exactly on the up-and-up. I witness you one Christopher Dorner.
It's a (sad?) fact that licensed, law-abiding gun owners are, as a whole (nation wide), MORE law-abiding than you policemen. Maybe if YOUR gun rights were based on subjective suitability, you'd live up to the same sense of morality as we do. If there's a bad situation, you should either engage (or not) based on an innate sense of morality, and trying to do the right thing, more-so than "Oh, shit, I've got this badge on I should look like I'm helping out."
And, you have NO (none, zero, zilch, nada) "obligation" to do a ****ing thing, even when you ARE on duty, never mind when you're off-duty, and out of your jurisdiction.
OfficerObie59 has the right answer and attitude. I don't know you KissPik002, but if you think your charges are the scum of the earth, then that attitude carries a shitload of Karma with it. If an ex-con has it out for you such that you're looking over your shoulder 24x7, it's probably for a damned good reason.
So unless you're for "same gun rights for everyone" take your high and mighty elitist ****ing attitude, and shove it where the sun don't shine. Everyone else is sick and goddamned tired of it. Seriously - **** you.
ochmude
Marine Veteran
With regard to the whole "held to a higher standard" thing, a private citizen in MA is required to go through more training to get a restricted LTC than an LEO needs to go through to fly armed on a commercial airliner. Just sayin'...
Similar threads
