Posted on 06/16/2004 10:09:43 PM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:16:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The House Judiciary Committee yesterday passed a bill that allows active-duty and retired law-enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons anywhere in the country.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act heads to the floor of the House for a final vote before going to the Senate, where a similar bill passed as an amendment in March by a 91-8 vote. The bill permits "qualified" law-enforcement officers -- retired, off duty and outside their jurisdiction -- to carry a concealed weapon in any state regardless of the state's law. It passed on a 23-9 vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I agree with your feelings. I'd really like to get a bill introduced into congress that would ban all exemptions that LE enjoys with regards to firearms and carry. Basically, every law that excludes LEO's from the same hoops and red tape we go through would be modified.
Mike
Amen. The right to carry arms is a badge of nobility. Off duty, much less (shudder) retired cops ought to have no more right to carry than any other well ordered adult citizen
As far as Kali? The people there must first stop electing communists, socialists, collectivists, militant minorities, and aggressive sodomites (all of whom are opposed to RKBA)to political positions. Illinois is ruled by Chicago. NJ by the mob.
Stage two has already begun. That is, the move toward "Vermont style carry." Alaska most recently. Others to follow, according to GOA.
Here in Missouri we overcame the voter corruption of St.L. A rabidly anti-Second Amendment Governor, and finally got CCW through the legislature. Is it a perfect law? No. Will it be amendmended? Darn right-if we get a Republican Governor and keep the Republican legislature.
Kansas is now fighting to get CCW. Not sure of Nebraska, but I believe they have filed for such.
Again, look at the maps of our progress. NRA,NCCW,etc. have them. Are there exceptions? Of course. But hard work and time will break the log jam. It did here...
What most people seem to forget and which bears repeating is that police are merely the "substitutes and agents" (Mass Const. Part the First, Art 5) of the people. It is not possible for an "agent" of the people to be delegated authority that the "principle" didn't already have to delegate. So if the police can be delegated the authority to carry anywhere, it only stands to reason that the principles (We the People) had to have had that authority to delegate to them in the first place. Hmmmmmmmm
Thought you might find #24 interesting
This stinks. The bill should allow ANYBODY to carry concealed anywhere in the nation, provided they meet the same standards as LEOs.
Since, as a group, CCP holders are probably more law-abiding than LEOs...
Ok, I haven't had all of my coffee yet. That should have been "principal" not "principle".
Serfs can't be allowed the same rights as the elite.
Dan this is moving the ball forward for National Reciprocity.
Thanks! I agree 100%
Someone should challenge the law on that basis, but what passes as our "supreme court" likely wouldn't even hear the case.
The New Hampshire House passed a bill to do so, but it was defeated in the Senate. A Colorado legislator also introduced a bill, but it was defeated also. Utah will introduce a bill this year.
You're right though. Things are moving in that direction, which is good. Now that most states have shall-issue CCW, it's time to take the next step (Vermont style carry)
Kansas is now fighting to get CCW. Not sure of Nebraska, but I believe they have filed for such.
Kansas will probably need a new governor to get a bill enacted. In Wisconsin, if pro-Rights folks pick up one or two seats up there this year, they can override their worthless governor and enact a bill. As for Nebraska, they have a unicameral legislature, and the votes have been there for a long time. Unfortunately, one senator, Ernie Chambers, has been holding the bill up for years. I think they need 2/3rds to stop his filibuster.
That's more than just a little disingenuous. There are plenty of restrictions in all but two states, Vermont and Alaska, but 34 states do have "shall issue" permit systems, which may include Alaska which retained it's permit system for reciprocity purposes. Four, plus DC, have outright bans, the other twelve have various forms of "may issue" permit systems. Virtually all the states with permit systems have lots of "unarmed victim zones" built into their laws.
Isn't that what the Second Amendment is supposed to do? No steenking permit should be required.
Posted by goldstategop:
"...I oppose the bill on principle. NO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR COPS..."
We're in agreement yet again, goldstategop! I'm all for retired LEO being able to carry a concealed firearm...along with all other law-abiding, sober, sane adults. No more consideration for police and no less.
While I'm of the mind that the 2nd Amendment is all one should need to holster-up...CCW permits should also be honored in all states, just like a driver's license.
~ Blue Jays ~
~ Blue Jays ~
Total BS.
Oh they've filed, lots of times. But one Senator Ernie Chambers always manages to block it. He's the Senator from one of the more blighted (and majority minority) regions of Omaha, but the fools keep sending him back, since before I was in college, and I started in 1968.
They shouldn't need one anyway, because their state Constitutional provision reads:
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This provision was amended to add the list of reasons, or at least part of it, by the people in 1988. However the State Supreme Court doesn't seem to think it means what it says, the People be damned
A summary of the resolvent decisions:
4. Right to bear arms The "Right to Bear Arms" amendment to this provision does not abolish the death penalty in Nebraska. Anderson v. Gunter, 235 Neb. 560, 456 N.W.2d 286 (1990). Section 28-1203(1) is not vitiated by the "Right to Bear Arms" amendment of 1988, is a valid exercise of the State's police power in reasonable regulation of certain firearms, and does not contravene this provision. State v. LaChapelle, 234 Neb. 458, 451 N.W.2d 689 (1990).
The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation by statute if the statute does not frustrate the guarantee of the constitutional provision. State v. Comeau, 233 Neb. 907, 448 N.W.2d 595 (1989).
"If your're not Cop, your little people..."
Somewhere Patrick Henry is rolling over in his grave. How about just passing a Second Amendment Re-iteration Bill? One that states EXACTLY what it says now, but in language even the most idiot liberal out there could understand? Yeah, it'll give Sarah Brady and the Sucker Moms a heart attack. So what? Is that a bad thing?
Lets re-elect the others and get rid of this fool who thinks that State Constitutions have any bearing on the NWO Plan.
/end sarcasm
Chambers is a name I recall from years back. Something about a capital punishment issue. I would hope people in Nebraska could override this clown. We found in Missouri that ya gotta just keep hammering away, and sooner or later, something will give.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.