Gun-rights groups oppose police exemption

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, April 19, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, April 19, 2002

Quote of the Day by kattracks 4/19/02

[Concentrate]

Hi John. It's good to know some folks are making a difference, not the least of which has been through your tireless efforts. Thanks, whoever you are.

[bybybill]

Idiots like Shamaya [who is he anyway] with their all or nothing attitude, really hurt those that truely believe in the 2nd amed. Was he ever heard of "nose of the camel"? When off duty cops are able to start stopping crimes cause they are armed, it will move us closer to nationwide right to carry for all of us.

[PLMerite]

When off duty cops are able to start stopping crimes cause they are armed, it will move us closer to nationwide right to carry for all of us.

Or they'll say that because all those off-duty cops are carrying, "we" don't have a need to. Remember, they're looking for an excuse to thwart us.

If off-duty cops should carry because they're cops, then they should be on-call 24/7 because they're armed.

No special privileges.

If I thought that the cops would turn around and help us once they "got theirs," then I might support this.

[GeorgeWBiscuit]

Wrong about the nose of the camel bit. It is all about power too. This Federal bill would come at the expense of the common citizen. Police in my state (California) can already still purchase high capacity magazines that the normal citizen cannot. Also, there was a rumor of a push to allow late registry of assualt weapons by law enforcement people that wasn't available to everyone else. The gun issue is all about power. I want the power to control my world. I want to be able to rely on me, not hope a vacationing policeman with his kids in tow has my back.

[sneakypete]

Idiots like Shamaya [who is he anyway] with their all or nothing attitude, really hurt those that truely believe in the 2nd amed.

Really? Ever heard of "divide and conquer"? Do you REALLY think all the retired cops in this country who are now for ALL of us being able to do this will still work to see that the rest of us are given our RIGHTS,once THEY have this right? If you do,Shamaya ain't the idiot.

Was he ever heard of "nose of the camel"? When off duty cops are able to start stopping crimes cause they are armed, it will move us closer to nationwide right to carry for all of us.

No,it won't. It will weaken our case.

[HiTech RedNeck]

As is it stinks of police state elitism. But suppose the bill also extended the exemption to include any citizen who has passed suitable training. And honorably discharged veterans, and current members of the armed forces.

[PLMerite]

Big IF. I'd have to know what the "suitable training" was, and if they consider what some of the current military members have is also "suitable."

[Myrddin]

Nearly every anti-gun law passed in California contains an exemption for law enforcement. I have a problem with that. The 14th amendment requires that laws apply to all persons equally. It is unconstitutional to give preference to one group of citizens (law enforcement) vs all others. It is in a sense a "bill of attainder" that legislatively punishes all persons who at NOT members of the named group by imposing punitive restrictions to firearm ownership and use. The Constitution explicitly forbids any "bill of attainder".

[bybybill]

The NRA is for the bill---good enough for me

[Eagle Eye]

Your attitude of taking whatever 'they' give is the real problem.

Don't support bad legislation just because it seems to be better than what you have now. If this is passed it will NOT be a stepping stone to national reciprocity, it will be a stone wall to it.

[Badray]

"The NRA is for the bill---good enough for me."

While I am a member of the NRA and appreciate their efforts to get people involved in the fight, I am less than impressed with the legislation and some of the candidates that they have backed.

[Ajnin]

Law enforcement officers get paid to excercise the second amendment while civilians, especially in states like CA have to pay and ask for permission from an unsympathetic government to excercise what is supposed to be an unrestricted freedom. In most cases civilians are held to a far higher standard of self defense then law enforcement officers. Civilians, in most cases have to use their bare hands to fight off an attacker with a gun or a knife whereas a cop can theoretically use a weapon with an unlimited cyclic rate of fire and ammo capacity. I think we need to even the playing field a bit before we start giving cops more freedom.

[PLMerite]

The NRA is for the bill---good enough for me.

I wonder where GOA and JPFO stand on the matter?

[Squantos]

Agree.......my angst is brought on by their seemingly increasing blind eye to incrementalism and elitism. But then I throw good money at em , and GOA, SAS, Liberty Belles, Texas State Rifle Association and anyone else that will beat the polidiots and presstitutes at their own game while we stand on the ammo box ready should the soap, ballot and jury box fail to save our Constitution........

Stay Safe !

[Badray]

Thanks for your comments.

I tend to believe that the NRA is more and more like the Feds. They do not want to solve the problem and have it go away, they just want to manage the problem and keep it as an issue that keeps us sending them money.

[CWRWinger]

I agree with Shamaya.

We don't need any more 'laws', to begin with. The Second Ammendment clearly states, "...shall not be infringed."

Off duty police officers should carry their personal concealed weapon just like any other citizen. Crossing state lines should not be a problem, either according to the Constitution.

BTW, IMO, these legislators like to write laws simply to see their own names in print, legacy builders.
Also, every policeman I have known (not too many), carried a concealed weapon off duty, bogus laws go hang.

[Maelstrom]

You're a 2nd class citizen, get used to it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Or they'll say that because all those off-duty cops are carrying, "we" don't have a need to. Remember, they're looking for an excuse to thwart us."

PLMerite is right, and you are wrong. Any citizen who has a state concealed-carry license should be allowed to carry concealed in any other state--just as any holder of a driver's license can drive in any other state.

[toddst]

Any citizen who has a state concealed-carry license should be allowed to carry concealed in any other state--just as any holder of a driver's license can drive in any other state.

Perhaps stated this way the average citizen can understand national right-to-carry with a state CCW license. Thanks for the example.