President Bush signed the police nationwide CCW bill!!!

[Brett]

Wow!  :eek:  I can't believe this issue has stirred up so much emotion and controversy.  Yes cops are human like the rest of us and yes there are a few rotten apples in the bunch. Unfortunately it's the few rotten ones that make the 11:00 news or that we hear about.  For every 'bad cop' there are 100s of thousands of good cops just doing their jobs, raising families, going to church, etc. just like the rest of us but their stories don't make the news, all we hear is the negative stuff.  

Getting back to the new CCW law.  With all the creeps and nuts out there roaming the streets these days, coupled with this relatively new threat of terrorists attacks right here in the good old U.S. of A (How would you all like to live in a country like Israel where terrorism is a common occurence?), personally I feel a little bit better knowing that more of the 'good guys' are now legally allowed to carry.  

Is this a first step toward a blanket CCW law for every citizen in good standing?  I thought the first step was when airline pilots were given the okay to carry?  By the way how come none of you who are crying fowl now that cops get a nation wide CCW didn't throw a hissy fit about the airline pilots?

Your probably thinking that I'm another 'elitist LEO'. Wrong, I'm not, but in the past 42 years many have been my neighbors, fellow church parishioners, coworkers, fishing & shooting buddies and just plain friends.
It was also a cop who stayed with my wife and infant daughter on the side of the highway in Newark, NJ for about an hour and a half looking after them until I could get there to replace a broken fan belt.

[MGMorden]

I don't believe that everyone should have blanket CCW rights.  There are folk out there that don't even deserve drivers licenses.

There's a big difference though.  A driving license is a state-awarded priviledge.  Keeping and bearing arms is a right.  Rights transcend priviledges.  And if you think that RTKBA doesn't apply to CCW: how?  It doesn't say we have the Right to Keep and Openly Bear Arms.  Twisting the meaning to keep undesireables from carrying concealed sets a precedent, which can be used to further erode the right (afterall, if we can bend it, then they could outlaw everything but muzzleloaders.  We'd still have the right to bear arms, just whatever arms they have decided are appropriate.  That's not a situation I want).  Besides, most people who would cause the true trouble with CCW are carrying anyways, regardless of laws.

[mitchell]

ok this thread is almost funny i'm sure the anti-gun people would  love to read this one divide and concur right???

ok now its my turn to be dumb and divide myself from fellow gun owners. i think of myself as a very safe gun operator and i think i could probably teach one of those ccw classes better then the people that do it now BUT the reason i'm not aloud to teach one is i'm not trained, and thats a darn good reason because i have as much training as a gedo punk. there is a reason are country as changed since the 1880's because people have changed people don't know how to use firearms anymore. how would you like this  have that same gedo punk hear that deer season is about to start well dagnabit he has the right to have a gun and feed him self so he goes to the gun store see's all these guns that cost way too much and then see's a little sks on sale $100  so he grabs it and goes to the woods hears a noise shoots off 10rds hears an other one  firers a whole clip , would you like to be the other hunter in that woods ? ok how about this would you like your sons and daughters in that same woods?? heck no you wouldn't . there is a reason we have gun laws. leo's have training stay are safer then most people with a gun, now i'm sure there are a few leo's out there that aren't but there sure a lot of normal people that are a lot worse.

question: who would you rather have a ccw?

              A. me

              B. msp ret ( a retired loe)


i chose B, how about you??

[MSP Ret]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Mitchell, with that sound reasoning I think you might make a fine LEO, just be aware as soon as you put on a badge there are a lot of people, friends included, that get to dislike you (secretly of course) and what you stand for. I remember several "tough guys" saying to me, you think that badge makes you a big man, huh, or something to the effect of, take that badge off and we will see who the tough guy is. What I wanted to tell them, and sometimes did, was that they should be happy I was wearing that badge because that was the only thing keeping me from beating the crap out of them, which is probably what they deserved. I would always try to treat those I met in my official capacity with kindness and respect, but they were the final determinator of the way they were treated. On many occasions I found it necessary to quietly remind them, sometimes with words whispered in their ears, was that the biggest mistake they might ever make was to mistake kindness for weakness, they must have believed me for this worked the great, great majority of the time.
The man makes the badge, the badge doesn't make the man.
My son became a firefighter and I am glad for that, I had a great exciting career as a LEO, but as I tell him, everyone loves a firefighter, no one loves a cop...until they need one...

Also, regarding the stories of "I knew a cop that did this" or "I heard of a cop that did this", Cops are just human like everyone else and all groups are made up of individuals, some good, some bad, even forum members are of this mix. The selection process used for LEO's is strict but some bad apples get through and we try to weed them out. However the "bad apples" in law enforcement are to a much lesser extent than the general populace. I have heard these stories my entire career and still do, however now that I am retired I can tell the story teller he is an a$$ to his face if not on this forum.  These stories go along with the stories of cops in coffee shops eating donuts. Some of the unsound reasoning posted here astounds even me. To blame all the cops in the country for one's wife's indiscretions is ludicrous, and why just blame cops, what about mailman, UPS drivers, plumbers, electricians, friends, anyone in uniform or anyone that comes to your house may be a target with that reasoning. On my old job we were ordered to be "the pillar of the community", it was even written that way in the preface to our Rules and Regulations.

I can tell you one other thing, everyone here that has condemned, shown disdain for, or grouped all LEO's together show that they do not have the intelligence, reasoning, or maturity to hold that position.  I am sure those persons would summarily fail the new physcological testing to become a LEO because of their tendency to dislike groups of persons if they did wrong or not.  All individuals are responsible for their actions and once anyone begins condemning a group for the actions of a few the battle for individual rights is lost. Would you dislike all brown eyed people because you read a story that a brown eyed person committed a crime?....<><.... :grin:

[MGMorden]

I am sure those persons would summarily fail the new physcological testing to become a LEO because of their tendency to dislike groups of persons if they did wrong or not.  All individuals are responsible for their actions and once anyone begins condemning a group for the actions of a few the battle for individual rights is lost. Would you dislike all brown eyed people because you read a story that a brown eyed person committed a crime?

So in a nutshell, you're saying that it's wrong to assign trust or distrust, or guilt or innocence, based on some arbitrary group?  I'll agree with that.  I've not said cops are bad.  My only point is that NOT being a copy doesn't make you unsafe with a gun, nor does being a cop mean the reverse.  Above you're saying discrimination is bad, yet condoning it by saying it's good that we have nationwide CCW given ONLY to LEO's.  While on duty that's their job and I can understand that, but when retired or off duty they're just like the rest of us.

ok this thread is almost funny i'm sure the anti-gun people would love to read this one divide and concur right???

This law has created a far broader and more distinct division amongst us than this simple forum thread could ever hope to do.

BTW, the idiot in your SKS story would be imprisoned if he did anyone harm, as he very well should be.  Be careful of preemptive firearms laws though.  It's a very easy step to go from screening who can and can't have guns, to saying "well we wouldn't have to worry about that ghetto punk, or anyone else for that matter, if we just outlawed all those nasty guns in the first place".

[Donaldo]

MSP Ret.
Very well said.  Like the old saying,  "If you don't like cops, who you gonna call when you need one, a hippie".

[Graybeard]

Reading this garbage from a bunch of "so called" gun owners and pro gun folks makes me PUNK!

The antis have already WON. This thread is proof of it. They have you so convinced the US Constitution doesn't mean what it says you have already willingly given up your Constitutional RIGHTS and are perfectly willing to accept handed out PRIVILEDGES given to a chosen few to replace them.

What part of KEEP ARMS do you not understand? That means you can OWN them with no restriction.

What part of BEAR ARMS do you not understand? That means you can carry them with you where ever you go. WITH NOT RESTRICTION.

So says the US Constitution. Only the state of Vermont realizes this. All others really have now made parts of the US Constitution a priviledge to be given or taken at the whim of those ruling powers. Now we have a federal law doing the same.

And you guys actually think it is a good thing. Well WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Your Constitutional RIGHTS are being stolen from you one by one and you're so dumbed down by the liberal media and democrap controlled shooling process you actually think you're getting some thing when in fact they are still taking from you.


Geez, the stupidity of the American public never ceases to amaze me. This is just one more step in the incrementalized plan to strip America of the US Constitution. I sure hope when we're all living under a totalitarian government that will make the old Soviete Russia look mild in comparison you guys can still sport your silly grins and say man ain't this nice of the government. They're letting us have one meal of bread and water today. Wow how nice and generous of our government.

Are you truly that blind to what's happening in America today? For Christ sakes OPEN YOUR EYES.

[mitchell]

Reading this garbage from a bunch of "so called" gun owners and pro gun folks makes me PUNK!

quote]

couldn't of been better said , come on guys let this thread die out

[handirifle]

Mitchel
Just like some have pointed out some of the shooters on this forum may be as well trained or better than some LEO's but the fact is most have not.  most of us have learned from parents, military or family, or all three.  Some have taken courses and have advanced themselves, but like it or not your hunting scenario is not too far off reality.

I think I would answer B as well.  Others have the right to disagree but I know my limitations.  I'd love to have a CCW (never happen in LA county) but I'd WANT much more training before I did so.  It's too easy to assume that because we can shoot well, know how to handle our weapon at the range, home or otherwise.  Just because one may be very safe and profecient in those places does not mean we would handle ourselves well in a stressful situation.  Cops don't train urban combat scenarios for nothing.

I personally would never live it down if I got into a gunfight while trying to offer assistance and accidentally killed an innocent person.

In my opinion that is a risk cops take every day they are on duty.  As I satted before I am an air traffic controller.  I wouldn't want someone that was a good pilot but not a trained controller getting me out for a break and taking over my position.  I don't hink anyone else would either.  There are too many things that can and do go wrong for someone without the training and expertise and experience to back it up, to all of a sudden be told to jump in and do it.

Issuing CCW's without a lot of required training would be the same thing in my mind.  I believe there might be too many situations where someone meant well but still cause more problems than need be.

When was the last time any of these same people treated a severely injured person?  I never have but have had SOME training in that.  Doesn't mean I should be the one they called on for it though.

I'm all for general issuance of CCW's, but like I said a LOT of REQUIRED training.  Stress situations force people to act a lot differently than they ever thought they would.  I've seen it in my job.  I've watched people freeze, I've watched them make hasty judgement call that mad a bad situation get very serious in short order.

Like MSP said, I've never lumped all cops together.  Yes there are bad apples and I have seen both sides of that coin.  My daughter was attacked by gang-bangers some years back and I'm just greatful for the officers that investigated that case. I'm glad they were on our side.

On the other side, this same daughter had a cop harrassing her on the freeway a year or so later.  A call to his precinct took care of that one.  it seems he was a problem child and his captain was greatful for the call.

My feeling has always been that if a cop, like anyone else has done you right, let him know it.  On the other hand if they have done you wrong, let his captain know it.  I don't mean that giving me a speeding ticket (when I know I was) either.  That is what we hired him for, not just to give it to the OTHER speeders.

There I'm off my soap box now.  Sorry for the long post.

[MSP Ret]

Thanks for the great post handirifle, very sensible.

And Mitchell, I agree with you also, now we even have the normally calm and thoughtful GB himself taking the Lord's name in vain in print. Boy he must really be cranked up to lower himself to that type of language....Lets let it go and get back to talking about shooting H&R's....<><....  :roll:

Thanks to all that posted here, those that agreed and those that opposed as well, it made for interesting reading but did not change the fact that thanks to President Bush the bill passed and the country is safer for it....The End

[gwhilikerz]

I would love to let this thread die. But I have something else to say :grin:. When I first saw this thread I tended to think that ccw for leo's was a good thing. I even said as much in an earlier post. I still think that it is good that leo's can carry. But after hearing both sides speaking rather loudly, I went to re-read  the 2ND Ammendment. I saw the words "keep and bear arms". To me that means I can own firearms and I can carry those firearms if I wish to.  Does that mean I can carry concealed? You bet it does! "bear" means carry! Does it really matter if I carry with a holster strapped on or just slide my revolver inside my waist band and under my shirt? NO!
HH I know we both live in KY and I am glad you feel confident enough to go without your ccw.  Unfortunately I live in a neighborhood where a "slumlord" thinks nothing about renting to drug dealers. Most of my neighbors are fine, decent people. (there is a state trooper, and a deputy sherrif living on the same block ). I carry my 38 all the time. Heck I even told the local Dairy Queen that as long as they had that stupid "no guns allowed" on the door I would not be enjoying any milkshakes there :grin:. When I stopped to think about this new "win" for our gun rights I asked myself this question: Should Trooper Williams and Sherif Allen have more right to carry concealed than me? I don't think so and frankly neither do Williams and Allen. We all wash our cars on Saturday afternoon. We all carry our concealed guns and we all wave, smile, and feel more secure. OK now I will stop posting to this thread.

[De41mag]

HH;

I did not say cops don't need the nation wide CCW law, I said that ALL upstanding citizens should have the right for a nation wide CCW.
Yes it takes two to tango, but when cops come to your house and are on the clock, being paid by the citizens tax money  and a 4 year old child there  while all this is going on you are darn right I'm gonna have a chip on my shoulder.  :x

Dennis

[handirifle]

GB
As the owner of the forum you're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else but the name calling isn't necessary.  Lighten up a bit.  We're all on the same side. Obviously everyone doesn't see it the same but there's no sense in calling every that disagrees with you stupid.

Keep it civil.

[Haywire Haywood]

DE, I meant no disrespect, altho I can see where my comments might have been taken badly.  I'd have bad feelings too in your situation.

If the constitution is to be taken literally, the whole passage must be taken into account. The first part of the sentence gives the reason for the second, and it clearly doesn't apply today.  There is no more "citizen soldier" required to bring his own squirrel rifle when he's called up for service.  As much as we would like to ignore that first phrase, it's there.  Like it or not.  It's the anti's first and best arguement. That amendment as a whole is outdated.  I think eventually, that will be the point that is used to do away with it altogether.  I have often thought that it might be good to update the 2nd amendment and take that unfortunate "militia" phrase out but that would open the door to amending it at every turn.  We have been lucky that those first amendments have been seen as "untouchable" but the fact is that all it would take is a large majority vote to wipe it off the books (2/3?).  The shooting public is a shrinking quantity.  As urban sprawl increases and trash lawsuits cripple the ability of manufacturers to operate and gunsmiths to apply their trade the number of shooters will continue to decline.  I hope this doesn't happen but I'm 36 and think I will live to see it come about.  Good Ol' California just banned their first bolt action and even single shot rifle.  Any action no matter what kind that is chambered for the 50BMG is now unavailable to citizens there.

Ian

[IntrepidWizard]

I agree Haywire,and also these people above don't want to include the whole Second amendment when dicussing the "Right to Bear Arms".Handrifle it seems that GB is hypociritical about calling names but controls the switch on others.

[MGMorden]

If the constitution is to be taken literally, the whole passage must be taken into account. The first part of the sentence gives the reason for the second, and it clearly doesn't apply today.  There is no more "citizen soldier" required to bring his own squirrel rifle when he's called up for service.  As much as we would like to ignore that first phrase, it's there.  Like it or not.  It's the anti's first and best arguement. That amendment as a whole is outdated.  I think eventually, that will be the point that is used to do away with it altogether.  I have often thought that it might be good to update the 2nd amendment and take that unfortunate "militia" phrase out but that would open the door to amending it at every turn.  

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Legally, the militia has already been declared to be all able-bodies males between 17 and 45.  However, you'll notice that it grants the right to maintain a militia (because it's necessary to protect our freeom),  but it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The RTKBA is not granted to the aforementioned militia, it's granted to the people, so that they will have a means of creating that militia.  No people aren't required to fight now.  The consitution doesn't say anything requiring a militia, just about allowing one (or rather, allowing the possibility of one).  The military is meant to protect us from outside forces.  The 2nd ammendmant is there to make sure that if necessary we can protect ourselves from the military (or more precisely, the government weilding that military).

[Haywire Haywood]

In that time there was no standing army. The militia they speak of was called up to protect our security from outside.  The reason why the people's right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed was so that an army could be raised if needed.

This is exactly the arguement that the anti's have been using for years, no point hashing it out again here.  I'm done on this thread.

Ian

[IntrepidWizard]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the correct punctuations and they were used properly above,which is rare. An this is where it comes from  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html  so with this in mind let us work with the facts and read the intentions.

[IntrepidWizard]

http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

[IntrepidWizard]

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm

[Clark]

Police have a relatively safe job.
Compare that to loggers or Alaskan crabbers, and the difference is very large.

Those who worshop police are those who worship government: liberals.

[Brett]

Those who worshop police are those who worship government: liberals.

I don't worship the police nor do I condemn them just because they are police officers.  I give them the same due trust and respect I that afford any other individual.    


Those of you who are taking an all or nothing stans on the national CCW issue at this time (i.e.; Every one should be allowed to carry or no one should be allowed to carry.) will get just that... no one will be allowed to carry.  Don't be foolish, take a page from the anti's play book, don't try to go for the whole enchilada but nibble away at it a little at a time.  I belive that we are slowly regaining the rights guaranteed us by the 2nd Amendment. IMO this law Bush signed is another small victory for us. Most states have "shall issue" laws now.  Airline pilots have been given the green light to carry anywhere across the country.  Now active and retired LEO's. If this 'elite' group doesn't return us to the early days of Dodge City we just may have the ammunition we need to get a national CCW law passed for all of us.

You know what I would really like to see?  The US Government spends billions every year on the "War Against Crime".  I would like to see the Government take a chunk of that money and provide free CCW training to any US citizen who want's it, provided they have a clean criminal and phycological record.  I guarantee you the violent crime rate would plummet.

[De41mag]

Brett;

Well spoken on the that last post.
About a month ago, USA TODAY wrote that violent crime was way down, but did they give any reason why...... nope, its because if they were to tell the whole story they would have to say it's because of more states allowing CCW permits. I believe that is the most one sided, right wing liberal paper or publicatioin in the country, or it's up there with the Washington Post.
But I do wish we had a nationwide CCW permit.
Again good writing on that last paragraph, you said a lot.

Dennis  

[handirifle]

Brett
Well said, and I too am done on this post.  We're beating a dead horse.

[IntrepidWizard]

This Dead horse is getting more beatings every decade since womens suffrage.

[.308]

Hey .308!!!, you thought the anti's would be upset about this, look at these guys getting upset!!! And I thought they were for the USA, Mom's Apple Pie, The Flag, motherhood and all things American. Some look more like they suscribe to the "everyone is equal" tenants of Socialism than the old fashioned American doctrine of you get what what you earn, what's good for the country, and whats fair, not just whats good for you. I guess I was tricked by thier camo clothing.
Feel free to jump in here, the waters fine as long as you can swim!!!....<><.... :grin:

And I thought G/B was a Bush backer:

Graybeard Outdoors officially endorses BUSH and Cheney in 2004.

What  can I say, I don't think these folks are ANTI gun, maybe just ANTI police. What do you think MSP?

Later,
Lamar

BTW, I had no idea my posting would stir up so much controversy. I'm sure what I have just said will add more fuel to the fire, and believe it or not that is not what I want to do. I certainly don't feel like this bill gives me any special privileges, it just keeps me from getting into trouble for carrying concealed if I were be placed in a situation where I HAD to use deadly force to defend myself or one of you.

For you folks who disageee, think about this please. If you or one of your family were in danger, who would you want to help them?

a) a CCW with no formal training
b) an off duty L.E.O. with CCW privileges
c) a retired L.E.O. with at least 15 years, and CCW privileges
d) none of the above

[jon f]

Divide and conquer, thats what Saddam Hussein did. Look at the crap that created.

[etothepii]

I've searched the Net for this bill, and found nothing. Does anybody have alink to it, or to a press release, or something?

Thanks,
-1

[Haywire Haywood]

Ok, I said I was done... but that link to the paper that the UCLA law professor wrote requires one more post.  

I find it a very convincing arguement.  Enlightening actually.  The multiple references to other legal/political documents of the time and explainations of how the wording was used and why is enough to change my mind about what to me was obvious before.  It's a little wordy, I had to re-read several paragraphs a couple of times to get the meaning but it sunk in finally.  Thanks.

Now I'm done...  :grin:
Ian

[gwhilikerz]

HH you can't stop now. You said you changed your mind? To what ? What is your opinion on the 2ND Ammendment now and the original thread idea (wish I could remember what it :-D  was)