HB495

thperez1972 said:

Rather than getting everyone up to the same level, you'd rather keep everyone down at the same level. Nobody can move up unless everyone does because that's the fair way. But like I explain to my 12 year old, someone else getting something doesn't mean she has to have the same thing. If their getting something isn't taking something away from her, it's not unfair. She should be happy they got what they got instead of whining they shouldn't have gotten it just because she didn't get it too.

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you make the accusation that opposing this legislation keeps us all down at the same level (not true ... more on that in a second). And then you tell your daughter that instead of wanting more, she should be happy with what she has.

Far be it for me to tell you how to parent your children, but I'm glad that my parents raised me to set big goals and to work hard to achieve them. Status quo isn't a comfortable state of being for me; it's a departure point from which I strive for more.

Insomuch as all of this has to do with gun rights ... I generally oppose "special" carry privileges for minority groups not because I want to keep everyone down, but rather because I'd like to bring *everyone* up. Every time we allow "special" carry privileges to float through the legislature, we entrench the idea that carrying a firearm is a "special" privilege that should only be accorded to the lucky few, which is exactly what the gun grabbers want. It's fine if you don't agree with me, and I know that there's a place in this for incrementalism ... but I don't think that this is it.

So, do I oppose the idea of retired cops being able to carry in certain places? Of course not. What I object to is that the rest of us can't carry in those places.

And, as for your question about not being able to carry in a courtroom ... I'm fine with that since everyone going in goes through a metal detector, and there's a phalanx of armed security at the ready there. Put the same security measures in schools, and I'll be fine with schools remaining gun free zones as well.

Mike

RaleighReloader said:

And then you tell your daughter that instead of wanting more, she should be happy with what she has.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You misread what I posted. I tell her she should be happy for the person who got what they got. I never said I told her to be content and to not work to get what she wanted.

I am not a cop and never have been, however; watching COPs for 30 years and other such shows has given me a peek into their lives as police officers. I also have met many officers. So this is my opinion:

Retired LEOs have been trained in all the ways CCWs have to be trained and MORE. It makes sense to me that these professionally trained men and women carry for the same reasons any law-abiding citizen should be able to carry. It just skips the process the rest of us have to go through because they have already been through it and much more.

They are also less likely to shoot someone unless it is absolutely necessary because of their training and years of experience. First of all, no normal person wants to kill another human being, particularly the type person who typically wants to be a police officer. This is why non-lethal means, such as pepper spray, batons, and Tasers were created for police use.
When a police officer shoots someone in the line of duty, there is always an investigation and they have to go through what I understand is an often very uncomfortable process, especially when the national news media and professional provocateurs are beating them up in the public eye. Civilian shootings are also investigated, but usually not in the media. I doubt they would want to go through what they already know is an uncomfortable process without being certain it was a "good shooting".

In short; I would trust an ex-LEO's judgement on the street to continue to "protect and to serve" as they have always done. They should be armed civilians after service.

met7881 said:

Even if retired law enforcment has to qualify yearly. So what. They still do not have any more authority than you or me. So whats the purpose of having more retired officers carrying. They have no duty to respond or protect general public. But ,they do have the ability to protect themselves where ever they go. Something you and I do not have. Being a retired officer does not exempt you from civil suits if you use your firearm in questionable circumstances.

Click to expand...

It's not about authority over the general public. Think of it this way: all CCW holders have to go through a certain qualifying process. These ex-cops have done that and continue to qualify each year while on the force. A big plus is that they are trained and experienced to handle the exact circumstances where one would most likely need to use their concealed weapon "on the street". So having them there gives me comfort since they will likely observe a potential crime before it happens and can most effectively stop it, likely without violence. The rest of us haven't had that training and experience and will be reacting after the fact.

Furthermore; ex-police may no longer have a duty to protect and serve, but you can bet that that instinct and drive to do so is still there. That is a character trait that you either have or don't have; it's not simply picked up and discarded after use. It is those traits looked for in the hiring process to even become a LEO in the first place.

I look forward to the day when all law-abiding citizens can carry for protection. Until proven otherwise; I believe giving that right to ex-LEOs is a step in the right direction.

"... I generally oppose "special" carry privileges for minority groups not because I want to keep everyone down, but rather because I'd like to bring *everyone* up. Every time we allow "special" carry privileges to float through the legislature, we entrench the idea that carrying a firearm is a "special" privilege that should only be accorded to the lucky few, which is exactly what the gun grabbers want...."


I understand your point of view, but I think of it more as a confirmation of those rights. let me give a real-life example:

Mississippi has long had an open carry law on the books, but until recently, it was routinely ignored by law enforcement. This was probably due to the poor training I believe MS cops get. I always found them unprofessional jackasses. I even had a friend get arrested for lawfully carrying a pistol on his hip in a public place. The cops were stunned when the DA told them to release him because he hadn't broken any laws.

You see, Mississippi has been slowly turning into a puppet state of the Federal government run by leftist Democrats over the last decade (Obama era). Even the local media has become a propaganda tool of the Left. So a whole host of long-held rights and state laws protecting gun owners have been routinely and increasingly marginalized and ignored.

A year or two after this incident with my friend, in response to a multitude of false arrests for open carry all over the state, the largely conservative Mississippi legislature enacted a bill that simply reaffirmed the right to open carry in that state so arrests such as these would cease.

This is how I view this bill regarding ex-police officers. It's a strong affirmation of the rights they already possess. Ex-cops already have the right to conceal carry in most states. This helps protect all of them from undue persecution by anti-gun/anti-cop hate groups. Because you can bet your last dollar they get undue and unwanted attention from the Socialists on the Left.

18 U.S. Code § 926C - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers