ACT 507 ( formerly HB 495)

STPHomie said:

I support the repeal of all gun laws.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

Not off the top of my head but neither can I think of any federal laws involving LEOs not acting under color of law that weren't expanded to the rest of us.

If your only options were to keep the LEOSA or repeal the LEOSA, which would you choose?

Click to expand...

STPHomie said:

I support the repeal of all gun laws.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

Before the law was passed, there already existed a group people who could carry concealed within all 50 states. Therefore, placement is the same as it was before the law was passed and nothing was lost.

Click to expand...

Nathan Hale said:

I believe this is incorrect.
The 'loss' for gun owners who can't nationwide CC is the decrease of probability that a law will be passed for all permitting nationwide CC.
This decrease exist because: a.) the idea of selective privilege for some, instead of a right for all, will becomes more normalized, and b.) there will just be fewer people left out in the cold pushing for the privilege of nationwide CC.
Something is definitely 'lost' by non-LEO gun owners who seek nationwide CC if another class of persons (retired LEOs) is added to the list of those who can nationwide CC.

(BTW, I did not indicate whether I favor LEOSA or not, I only indicated that there is in fact something 'lost' by those who would still not have the privilege.)

Click to expand...

Warhammerhead87 said:

I knew he wouldn’t answer the question.

Click to expand...

mperr7530 said:

So this is somewhat of a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, I support any legislation that inches us closer to Constitutional Carry as the Framers intended. On the other hand, I'm against any legislation that creates 'special' or 'protected' classes, whether that be based on race, sex, or former occupation. Please note, if a PRIVATE business wants to extend a group certain benefits (e.g. a free appetizer for retired LEOs, free admission for retired LEOs, etc), that is well within the business's right. I take issue when elected officials create a 'special' class and dole out priviliges in an attempt to garner votes.

Click to expand...

mperr7530 said:

As to the arguement that giving one group special rights doesn't mean that you 'lose' anything isn't really sound logic. For example, if you are not selected for a position due to an Affirmative Action hiring requirement, you didn't lose anything, as you didn't have the position to begin with. Likewise, if you are one of those over-achieving Asians trying to get into Havard and are denied entry due to an over-representation of Asians in Ivy League schools, that recent graduate didn't 'lose' anything as he/she wasn't enrolled. The same is true for granting special privilages to select groups based on arbitrary criteria. A good rule of thumb is anytime you grant a right to a group, you inherantly disinfranchise another group (those not within the group granted the right). Just my $0.02 (not adjusted for inflation).

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

We're not talking about all gun laws. The question is specifically about the LEOSA. If your only options were to keep it or repeal it, which would you choose?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

I believe your degree of probability is based on speculation. To say there might possibly be a loss in the future if certain conditions are met is not the same as there being an actual loss now.

I don't completely understand what you are writing here (you wrote 'degree of probability', I wrote 'decrease of probability(?)); but no matter, I think I understand the essence of the point you are making throughout this thread. I see a loss to the strength of the movement for national CC for everyone, if selective classes are singled out for the privilege, to the exclusion of all others. You don't think there is a loss to non-LEO gun owners because they never had nationwide CC privilege in the first place. Is this correct?

Click to expand...

Nathan Hale said:

thperez1972 said:

I believe your degree of probability is based on speculation. To say there might possibly be a loss in the future if certain conditions are met is not the same as there being an actual loss now.

I don't completely understand what you are writing here (you wrote 'degree of probability', I wrote 'decrease of probability(?)); but no matter, I think I understand the essence of the point you are making throughout this thread. I see a loss to the strength of the movement for national CC for everyone, if selective classes are singled out for the privilege, to the exclusion of all others. You don't think there is a loss to non-LEO gun owners because they never had nationwide CC privilege in the first place. Is this correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, the degree of probability should have been decrease of probability. It's still speculation. I don't view it as a loss to the strength of the movement. I see it as one step closer to the privilege being extended to everyone. Each new subset of the population who is included in the privilege brings it closer to everyone having the privilege. But in general, yes, it's difficult to make the argument non-leo's lost something they didn't have.

Click to expand...

Warhammerhead87 said:

I knew he wouldn’t answer the question.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

Nathan Hale said:

Yes, the degree of probability should have been decrease of probability. It's still speculation. I don't view it as a loss to the strength of the movement. I see it as one step closer to the privilege being extended to everyone. Each new subset of the population who is included in the privilege brings it closer to everyone having the privilege. But in general, yes, it's difficult to make the argument non-leo's lost something they didn't have.

Click to expand...

The "foot in the door" theory has occurred to me, and yes, I agree, adding subsets of persons might help lead to nationwide CC for all. (I hope it does, but in today's America, I do not feel assured.)
I liked your analogy about "Curt's bonus points"; I thought that was pretty spot on. I do understand that theory, but I don't subscribe to it because, to me, it ensconces an injustice. (I suspect that is where we disagree.)

Oh well, I suppose time will tell.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

Sure it does. Again, the law takes nothing away from those not covered by the law and is one more step toward allowing everyone nationwide concealed carry. If you offered to allow the banning of certain rifles based on specific cosmetic features that do not affect its lethality, or as the liberals call them, assault weapons, how many liberals would stand up and say "no, it's either all weapons banned or no weapons banned." None. If you're sticking to the all or nothing, all you're accomplishing is holding everyone back. This law does not reduce people to second class citizens. Nothing changes for the people not included. The law doesn't reduce anything for the people not included. Anyone not included can proceed exactly as they proceeded before. If congress repeals the silencer portion of the NFA, are you going to be against it because the SBR portion isn't included? I certainly hope not. If your only options were to keep the LEOSA or repeal the LEOSA, which would you choose?

No offense, but I have conversations like this with my 12 year old daughter.

12 YO: It's not fair. The teacher gave Curt bonus points today for nothing.
Me: Did those points come from your grade?
12 YO: No.
Me: Does your grade depend on Curt's grade?
12 YO: No.
Me: Do those bonus points affect you in any way?
12 YO: No.
Me: If the teacher gave you bonus points, would you give them back because Curt didn't get them too?
12 YO: No.
Me: Then you shouldn't be butthurt about those points. In fact, you should be happy for Curt.

Click to expand...

Nathan Hale said:

Don't know if your question is for me or not, but no, I think it is an injustice for Curt to get bonus points for doing nothing.

You know there is one factor that is getting overlooked in this whole discussion. The behavior that the govt is now parsing out as a privilege use to be a right! I don't know how far back you would have to go, (1910,1900,1890?), but you could travel in this country from NYC to San Fran with your pistol on your person, without permit, and not be breaking the law for doing so. The govt has taken a right, turned it into a privilege, and now parses it out piecemeal.

(If someone already pointed this out, my apologies for not catching it.)

Click to expand...

MTregre said:

So you would be happy when Curt has the same job as you (may or may not do it better) and gets double the salary? You would be happy for Curt?

Click to expand...

Nathan Hale said:

thperez1972 said:

The "foot in the door" theory has occurred to me, and yes, I agree, adding subsets of persons might help lead to nationwide CC for all. (I hope it does, but in today's America, I do not feel assured.)
I liked your analogy about "Curt's bonus points"; I thought that was pretty spot on. I do understand that theory, but I don't subscribe to it because, to me, it ensconces an injustice. (I suspect that is where we disagree.)

Oh well, I suppose time will tell.

Click to expand...

I would agree that's where we likely disagree.

Click to expand...

thperez1972 said:

If I receive a fair wage for the job I do and Curt's salary is not coming from my pay, sure. I'd be happy for Curt. Obviously I would prefer to make his salary. But if I'm paid what I deserve, Curt's salary doesn't affect me.

Click to expand...

MOTOR51 said:

You also had to do that while on horseback with no A/C or showers. I’ll pass on the old way thank you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...