Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Passes 'National Concealed Carry for Cops'
U.S. Newswire ^ | 6/23/2004 | NA

Posted on 06/24/2004 1:51:47 PM PDT by neverdem

LEAA's 12-Year Fight Ends in Victory for Officer Safety

To: National Desk

Contact: Ted Deeds of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, 703-847-2677

WASHINGTON, June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The House of Representatives today overwhelmingly passed H.R. 218, legislation that would allow qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry their firearms concealed in all 50 states.

Originally drafted by Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) Executive Director Jim Fotis in 1992, the 'National Concealed Carry for Cops' legislation has been a 12-year fight that has been embraced by nearly every association representing rank and file police officers and a significant bipartisan majority in the House and Senate.

At a press conference marking passage of the life-saving legislation in the House, Fotis remarked, "After more than a decade of fighting, a major victory has been won for America's men and women in blue. For 12 years the Law Enforcement Alliance of America has backed Congressman Cunningham in his efforts and helped lead the fight to pass H.R 218. In that time Duke has proven himself, time and time again, to be a good friend and the greatest ally a good cause -- and cops -- could ever have. We owe a debt of gratitude to Law Enforcement's 'Top Gun' on Capitol Hill. Thank you Congressman Cunningham."

LEAA's Fotis and Rep. Cunningham were joined by Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) and Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) as well as law enforcement leaders Bill Johnson from the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), Don Baldwin from the National Law Enforcement Council (NLEC), Brad Card from the National Troopers Coalition (NTC) and other law enforcement leaders as well as officers from area departments.

H.R. 218 now awaits a vote by the Senate. President Bush has indicated his strong support and his willingness to promptly sign 'National Concealed Carry for Cops' into law.

For more information about H.R. 218 or S. 253 please go to: http://leaa.org/218/

With over 75,000 Members and Supporters nationwide, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) is the nation's largest coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated to making America safer.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: California; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; ccw; donutwatch; leaa; leo; policeprivilege; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: neverdem

I live in the Great Basin, on the Wasatch Front in Utah. When you get more than 50 miles from the 4 counties that make up the majority of population, backup for a State Trooper is a half hour off. The Troopers I know are happy to have armed citizens around, as are the majority of sheriff's deputies.

Of course, we don't have a Sullivan act out here. yet... and nobody pays much mind to the Mini-14 in the back window of the pickup.

Naw, I'm not optimistic about the whole thing. The cancer is eating it's way in from both coasts. I do appreciate the perspectives from the planet outside the confines of the Rockies. Welcome to Utah. Set your watch back 20 years.


41 posted on 06/24/2004 4:00:24 PM PDT by glock rocks (I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SedVictaCatoni
A statement of why on earth this is supposed to be within the constitutional powers of Congress would be nice.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I'll venture interstate commerce and the commerce clause in that document.

42 posted on 06/24/2004 4:03:00 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

and the penumbras. don't forget those all-reaching penumbras.


43 posted on 06/24/2004 4:07:47 PM PDT by glock rocks (I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I am all for this, It will save lives.


44 posted on 06/24/2004 4:09:05 PM PDT by cmsgop ( Michael Berg: "What has happened between Mr. Moore and myself is personal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pacman50

Yo!


45 posted on 06/24/2004 4:09:49 PM PDT by cmsgop ( Michael Berg: "What has happened between Mr. Moore and myself is personal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TRY ONE

The last sentence in comment# 39 was supposed to start as "My guess is", not "My is". Ugh


46 posted on 06/24/2004 4:10:34 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks


47 posted on 06/24/2004 4:11:18 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

LOL, that was supposed to be.


48 posted on 06/24/2004 4:12:20 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If the Congress can pass a law enabling cops to carry nationwide, they can pass a law banning CCW holders from doing so.

Their is already a law that recognizes the Right of all Americans to carry guns nationwide. It's call the 2nd amendment.

And there are already laws which make it a federal felony to deprive any American of their civil Rights.

If Bush/Ashcroft really believed the RKBA was an individual Right, and they really believed in enforcing the laws, they would simply file federal civil Rights charges against the first state cop that harassed someone carrying a gun outside their own state.

But they don't. They care about as much for individual Rights as Bill Clinton cares about his character.

They, like most previous administrations, believe that the gov't is the source of all of our Rights, and whatever "privlidges" we the people have are simply a result of our good graces.

If the House really cared about the second amendment, they would not have passed this bill unless it applied to EVERYONE. And if Bush cared about us peasants or the Bill of Rights, he would veto it.

49 posted on 06/24/2004 4:14:11 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
I understand what you mean, but if I'm in a state that has the audicity to reject the 2nd Amendment (and there are many), I would prefer that there might be someone around that is packing.

Under Federal law, they CANNOT reject any of the Bill of Rights.

All it would take for them to 'cease and desist' would be for Aschroft to order in his JBT's to arrest those state cops and prosecutors who willfully conspire to deprive Americans of their 2nd amendment Rights. It is a federal felony to conspire to deprive or deprive someone of their civil Rights under color law.

If the feds did that, then cops would be able to carry nationwide. Of course, it would also mean that us peasants would be able to do so also, which this administration is dead-set against.

50 posted on 06/24/2004 4:17:06 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

More privileges for the elites but not for ordinary Americans.


51 posted on 06/24/2004 4:17:15 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

I totally agree.


52 posted on 06/24/2004 4:17:34 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: willstayfree
Now we have to find a way to get this passed for citizens as well.

So if we can't do this with a Republican President, and a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, when do you expect to "get this passed for us citizens"?

53 posted on 06/24/2004 4:18:21 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

By righting this law they are telling us the second amendment doesn't really exist for us...but for them.


54 posted on 06/24/2004 4:18:35 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
Do you think this will make nationwide reciprocity for carry permits more difficult to attain for the common folk?

I doubt it. I'm not aware of a single state that has passed CCW, which used the fact that off-duty cops can carry to enact the bill. Quite the contrary, "cop organizations" are usually the ones trying to block them.

If it weren't for the cops blocking CCW laws across the country, there would already be reciprocity in 45 or more states.

55 posted on 06/24/2004 4:20:36 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
And consider that in many states, illegal concealed carry is a slap on the wrist. In California, it's a misdemeanor for the first offense

Now that cops can carry nationwide, many of them will be less willing to cut Joe Q. Citizen a break for "illegally" carrying.

56 posted on 06/24/2004 4:21:41 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope
By righting this law they are telling us the second amendment doesn't really exist for us...but for them.

Our elected officials in Washington have a radically different (and wrong and illegal) view of the relationship between the people and the gov't.

They think the gov't is supreme, and all rights, privlidges, etc.... eminate from them.

In reality, "we the people" have supreme authority in this country, and we retain all our Rights (even if a majority votes to surrender them).

Any authority the gov't has is granted by "we the people", and the primary purpose of the government is to protect our Rights.

57 posted on 06/24/2004 4:26:01 PM PDT by Mulder (Those who would give up liberty for temporary security, deserve neither -- Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: I got the rope

righting = writing


58 posted on 06/24/2004 4:29:28 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

Have you noticed that Cops are no longer called Peace Officers? They are now Law Enforcement and they call us civilians.

One of my family members just joined the Border Patrol and used the same terminology with me. I corrected her and told her that she was a civilian too, but she insisted that she was not. I guess cops think of themselves above Civilian Law now, but they sure don't fall under the UCMJ.


59 posted on 06/24/2004 4:32:55 PM PDT by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

It could be a foot in the door if some of the arguments from this thread are used to shape the "National CCW for regular folks" debate. It depends on who frames the argument.

If this passes, both sides will try to use it. Antis will say that this makes CCW for civilians unnecessary. Pros will disparage the elitism of cop-only CCW and say that the benefits of cop CCW will be increased (more guns = less crime) with civilian CCW.

It might help to point out that civilians have a lower percentage of "bad shoots" than cops do, though this may be an apples & oranges comparison because many concealed carry civilians respond to a crime they actually witness, while on duty cops tend to show up after the fact & have to figure out who the bad guys are. This is an general argument for CCW.

Since most states have CCW now it would seem that it wouldn't be that difficult to get majority votes for national reciprocity. The arguments for CCW on the state level could be used in the national debate.

Would there be a "state's rights" argument against this? If so, I think the 2nd amendment and equal protection should trump it. Doubt a liberal judge would agree with me though.


60 posted on 06/24/2004 4:34:33 PM PDT by Old Dirty Bastiat (it wants to be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson