Did you miss the part about your hero Senator Kerry voting against this bill?
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Posted on 07/28/2004 8:41:07 PM PDT by Ramonan
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' SAFETY ACT SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT BUSH!
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, proudly announced that President George W. Bush signed H.R. 218, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act" into law on Thursday.
"This triumph was the result of a long, hard-fought battle," Canterbury said. "The Fraternal Order of Police has been working toward this day for over ten years. With the stroke of his pen, the President has made real the hopes of law enforcement officers across the nation."
The legislation, sponsored by Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), was passed by the House in June, and then by the Senate earlier this month. It exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms.
Canterbury and F.O.P. Executive Director Jim Pasco were the only law enforcement representatives to meet with the President in the Oval Office before the bill signing. "The President has truly made this country a safer place," said Canterbury after the ceremony. "By enacting this legislation, President Bush has ensured that when officers are confronted with a situation to which they must react, they have the tools necessary to ensure their own safety, and the safety of their families and the public they have been sworn to protect."
Now that the measure has been signed into law, active and retired law enforcement officers will be able to carry their firearms even when traveling outside their own jurisdictions. The bill, which was the F.O.P.'s top legislative priority, had wide, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate during its consideration in the Congress.
"There are many people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude today. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), and Representatives Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Duke Cunningham (R-CA) were all instrumental in moving the bill through the legislative process. We are especially grateful to President Bush, a true friend to law enforcement. Without his tireless support, we would not be here today. But most importantly, we owe our thanks to all those F.O.P. members who have worked so hard to achieve this goal."
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 318,000 members.
The law, first drafted in 1992 by Congressman Randy " Duke" Cunningham and LEAA has become the number one legislative priority of America's rank and file police officers and is also backed by nearly every national organization representing rank and file law enforcement officers. Fotis, along with other leaders from America's law enforcement community and key members of Congress were at the President's side as he signed this unprecedented, life-saving legislation.
These folks will use their firearms to defend themselves and others from violent attacks -- exactly the same way that armed civilians employ their concealed guns in the nearly 40 states that allow honest, law-abiding civilians to carry concealed." Fotis went on to make clear, "Just as we have seen time and time again with civilians who safely and responsibly carry concealed guns because of Right-to-Carry, I believe the brave men and women of law enforcement that can now carry the tools of their trade will help make America more secure." Fotis added, "America's men and women in blue have always known that President Bush stands shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight for public safety and homeland security. By signing this law, the President is making an unprecedented effort to support our nation's protectors after their shift or tour of duty has ended."
LEAA points out for the record, that while President George Bush has unequivocally demonstrated his support of Law Enforcement, including his action today on H.R. 218, just three months ago, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) made a special effort to leave the campaign trail, returning to the Senate to vote against this bill. On March 2, Senator Kerry, against the wishes of the law enforcement community, voted to kill the Senate version of H.R. 218 by voting for 'poison pill' amendments.
(Excerpt) Read more at calibrepress.com ...
Did you miss the part about your hero Senator Kerry voting against this bill?
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Why aren't the rest of us law abiding citizens granted this freedom? Why only a select few?
I could have sworn the 2nd Amendment states: "Shall not be infringed".
That is probably buried in the Border safety and protection act.
I am glad this group of people get this right and freedom, but what about law abiding citizens? What happened to our second amendment? What happened to our rights and freedoms?
HR 218 doesn't allow drinking with concealed weapons.
If the police orgs outside of LEAA and sometimes the Sheriffs org start backing CPL reciprocity for law abiding citizens, and at least stays neutral on gun laws, I'm more apt to support it.
] If they aren't there for us, why should I be there for them? The MSP was the big problem with CPL here. The FOP opposed us too.
No, we're not, but we do. And we have had one for some time. Look at 'may issue' states... Heck - IL allows for no regular citizen to carry period.
Incrementalism works in both ways.
Sui generis, not sui juris.
"Eat your hearts out, any anti-gun people reading this."
I thought the anti-gun nuts were all for LE having the right to carry? They were the only ones "qualified" to do so.
When gubmint makes the same declaration for Joe Six Pack, I'll stand up and cheer.
Could some enterprising Sheriff "deputize" citizens for the purposes of qualifying them under HR 218? Might make an interesting campaign platform.
I believe that Lysander Spooner had some ideas on that subject.
And I openly admit that I can't see any way to accomplish that other than via the federal government. Perhaps I just haven't thought the problem through completely.
What bothers me is that this intrusion on states' rights was done "in the dark of night", with no debate, and apparently in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Did anybody hear Rudy Guilliani on Fox responding to Johnny Edward's "two Americas" salient? I wanted to kiss the man. He said something like, "When I grew up, there was only one America where everybody was treated the same under the law. That's the way it is supposed to be."
What America needs is a president and congress to just come out and admit that the last 70 some years of federal gun control laws (since Miller v. U.S.) have been unconstitutional and that under our Constitution, anybody who wants to carry a gun can do so anywhere he or she wants to as long as it is used lawfully. Period.
This kind of law really pisses me off though.
Sure. It doesn't change the fact that the US is a Constitutional Republic and absolute and binding determinations of justice, right or the Constitutionality of law were given given to the judiciary, specifically to judges. A jury, or a subset of a jury can make certain decisions regarding the law before it, but those decisions are not binding anywhere else. Besides that, if juries were so perfect as suggested, then the reps and decisions the reps make would mirror and manifest that perfection. If juries refuse to convict, it's up to the reps to take note and make changes to the law. If the sentiment in juries is so strong, the reps will be replaced if they don't act.
Notwithstanding, common law was created in courts and given by judges.
...with the notable exception of the Magna Carta, of course.
Any repeal of any gun control (save for incarcerated felons) is a step in the right direction.
We will incrementally roll them all back on law at a time.
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
The creation of the US Constitution was different how?
Not if those folks are no longer on their payroll.
It's been an actively contested topic for 10-12 years. There was debate and plenty of feedback.
The 14th Amend was created, because States were violating the rights of minority subsets of their citizens. The fundamental principle's contained in the 14th should have been applied, along with the recognition and application of the 2nd Amend. It was not. This is political pandering to a specific class of voter, furtherance of professional government and another encroachment on Freedom.
Both sprung from the uprising of an oppressed people against a tyrannical and arbitrary government who continuously violated the common law with fiat law.
But the question was "What is the source of the common law?" You said judges, which clearly wasn't the case during the creation of the Magna Carta. The nobles themselves overruled the King at the points of a number of spears.
From my viewpoint, that's an example of common law in action, regardless of how the lawyer class tries to exclude us mere peons from any "lawmaking".
The nobles themselves were the judges. It should be kept in mind that all of this came about through a somewhat continuous process of refinement. "
"continuously violated the common law with fiat law. "
There is nothing particularly special about either of those, they are not absolute, nor are they fundamental. What is absolute is the concept of natural law, which is fundamental. Natural law contains the concepts of Freedom, rights that protect all individuals and their nature equally. Common law contains nothing within itself, it is just a process and collection of judgements and decrees.
"The nobles themselves overruled the King at the points of a number of spears. "
They did this with help from those that received favors from the nobles. If there is any valid justification for what they did, it is to be found in natural law, not common law. Contemporary attempts at corruption use the socialist foundations, such as those created by Rawls. Establishing common law based on those leftist foundations is a simple recreation of the serfdom that was eliminated by virtue of recognition and acceptance of natural law in a long process.
It's the underlying principles that count, not the process.
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.