ACT 507 ( formerly HB 495)

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ozarkpugs

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2018
    454
    18
    US Zanoni mo
    Before the hate or claims I'm anti cop come let me say I'm personal friends with my sheriff my nephew is a deputy and I have a good friend who is a state trooper and 2 parish deputy friends ,all of whom agree with me on this . Would you be happy about a law that says only politicians are covered under free speech? Only journalist have freedom of
    the press and only ordained ministers have freedom of religion? Only government (or retired government ,as leo are government) employees are completely protected under the second ? It's a slippery slope isn't it . Some say it doesn't take anything from me by giving them the "right" I say I also have the right and you (the government) are giving the people who are hired to be sure I don't exercise that right permission to do what I'm not allowed to do because of a law you ( Imo) illegally passed .

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
     

    mperr7530

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Dec 22, 2013
    165
    16
    Gonzales, LA
    Yes, I disagree with the ADA. Especially Title I and III (as it pertains to private entities). What a private business decides to do with it's capital should be it's own choice; and they can face the law of the marketplace.

    As to my analogy, I was trying to make the point that you do lose something when a group is given rights/privillages based on arbitrary criteria. As to what is lost when legislation is passed to favor a select group, you lose time (time for the next legislative session to review the merits of Constitutional carry), or as you put it, 'your place in line'. And my ability to CC isn't based on another's ability to CC, true, but my ability to CC in all 50 states is impacted, as from the moment the act becomes law until Constitutional carry is implemented, I would have had an onus upon me that another group did not due to a legislative act.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    How do you determine a fair wage when the comparison gets twice as much because his name it Curt?
    What is fair? I think the word you really should be using is acceptable.

    There are enough people working a particular job to where there is a rough average for a fair wage so the comparison is with more than Curt's wage. Supply and demand determines that wage. Any outlying wages are anomalies that barely affect the average, if at all.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Before the hate or claims I'm anti cop come let me say I'm personal friends with my sheriff my nephew is a deputy and I have a good friend who is a state trooper and 2 parish deputy friends ,all of whom agree with me on this . Would you be happy about a law that says only politicians are covered under free speech? Only journalist have freedom of
    the press and only ordained ministers have freedom of religion? Only government (or retired government ,as leo are government) employees are completely protected under the second ? It's a slippery slope isn't it . Some say it doesn't take anything from me by giving them the "right" I say I also have the right and you (the government) are giving the people who are hired to be sure I don't exercise that right permission to do what I'm not allowed to do because of a law you ( Imo) illegally passed .

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

    To this I would say you are comparing apples and oranges and it's not a slippery slope at all. Yous examples involve losing a right you currently have today. With LEOSA, you are not (in my opinion). A more appropriate analogy would be marijuana. Some states have made medicinal marijuana legal but kept recreational use illegal. Some have legalized both. If you believe both should be legal (note: I do), would you vote against medicinal marijuana because recreational us was not included. Or would you view the medicinal use as a step closer to recreational use. Medicinal use creates a special class who have a right that the "second class citizens" do not.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Yes, I disagree with the ADA. Especially Title I and III (as it pertains to private entities). What a private business decides to do with it's capital should be it's own choice; and they can face the law of the marketplace.

    As to my analogy, I was trying to make the point that you do lose something when a group is given rights/privillages based on arbitrary criteria. As to what is lost when legislation is passed to favor a select group, you lose time (time for the next legislative session to review the merits of Constitutional carry), or as you put it, 'your place in line'. And my ability to CC isn't based on another's ability to CC, true, but my ability to CC in all 50 states is impacted, as from the moment the act becomes law until Constitutional carry is implemented, I would have had an onus upon me that another group did not due to a legislative act.

    Fair enough. And to be fair, the ADA does have unintended consequences. Because of the burden put on private businesses, they now have a greater incentive then before the ADA to not hire someone covered under the ADA.

    As far as losing your place in line with LEOSA, I can't say I would agree with that stance unless nationwide concealed carry for everyone was on the table and seriously being considered when it was shelved in favor of LEOSA. Otherwise, it's a "what if" argument. I could argue LEOSA would cause Washington to view nationwide concealed carry for everyone sooner than they otherwise would. That too would be a "what if" argument.

    Lastly, kudos on the bloody mess perk.
     

    firemanwade

    Active Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Sep 17, 2009
    31
    8
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Maybe this has already been said as I have not read all the comments. Retired LEO do get special treatment when it comes to carrying concealed and there is good reason. In fact it is the same reason that LEO always carry. Imagine you have just retired from 30 years of LEO service and take a trip to enjoy your retirement when you run into that guy you put away out on early parole and you aren't carrying because the state doesn't recognize your permit.....
     

    JBP55

    La. CHP Instructor #409
    Premium Member
    Rating - 100%
    338   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    16,999
    113
    Walker
    Maybe this has already been said as I have not read all the comments. Retired LEO do get special treatment when it comes to carrying concealed and there is good reason. In fact it is the same reason that LEO always carry. Imagine you have just retired from 30 years of LEO service and take a trip to enjoy your retirement when you run into that guy you put away out on early parole and you aren't carrying because the state doesn't recognize your permit.....

    I agree but THEY will never understand.
     

    Bigchillin83

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    94   0   1
    Feb 27, 2012
    6,188
    113
    Livingston
    lol thinking about it in that aspect... I can remember as a teenager (product of public school) having to worry about placement around certain individuals at school functions, state fair, parties ect. These were known foes that I knew by name and where they lived,classes ect. And having to watch you back for these individuals was always tricky or very confrontational ... I couldn't imagine having to worry about the crack head druggy you picked up 5 years ago that you only met for 10mins to arrest and book and then back on with your life (X 5000), and him thinking on retaliation later on down the road because it was the "officers fault" that his life was ruined not the lack of good decisions made on his part ...
     
    Last edited:

    mperr7530

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Dec 22, 2013
    165
    16
    Gonzales, LA
    Fair enough. And to be fair, the ADA does have unintended consequences. Because of the burden put on private businesses, they now have a greater incentive then before the ADA to not hire someone covered under the ADA.

    As far as losing your place in line with LEOSA, I can't say I would agree with that stance unless nationwide concealed carry for everyone was on the table and seriously being considered when it was shelved in favor of LEOSA. Otherwise, it's a "what if" argument. I could argue LEOSA would cause Washington to view nationwide concealed carry for everyone sooner than they otherwise would. That too would be a "what if" argument.

    Lastly, kudos on the bloody mess perk.

    Thanks. And I agree that much of my position in regards to the legislation is hypothetical. I do feel that legislation like LEOSA is a compromise to Constitutional Carry, which in my opinion (and depending on your viewpoint, is supported by history) any compromise hurts the effort to return us to the model the Framers intended. That said, it may be as you, and others, have posted that this could be inching us towards CC, in which case I'm all for it.
     

    mperr7530

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Dec 22, 2013
    165
    16
    Gonzales, LA
    Maybe this has already been said as I have not read all the comments. Retired LEO do get special treatment when it comes to carrying concealed and there is good reason. In fact it is the same reason that LEO always carry. Imagine you have just retired from 30 years of LEO service and take a trip to enjoy your retirement when you run into that guy you put away out on early parole and you aren't carrying because the state doesn't recognize your permit.....

    And should the non LEO citizen who provided testimony or the non LEO store owner who called the police on the parolee not be extended the same right of self protection? While your position seems reasonable, and I grant you that those who choose to enter law enforcement do tend to encounter society's dreggs more than that of an EAJ (Everyday Average Joe), wouldn't a more sound approach be Constitutional Carry? That would apply to retired LEO as well as the EAJ.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Who is the “THEY” you are referring to?

    My family knows that if we're not standing next to each other and someone walks up to me and starts talking to me, they aren't to walk up on the conversation. If it's appropriate for me to introduce the person to them, I'll go to them or call them over. "They" refers to the people who have never had to sit down with their family and have that discussion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Thanks. And I agree that much of my position in regards to the legislation is hypothetical. I do feel that legislation like LEOSA is a compromise to Constitutional Carry, which in my opinion (and depending on your viewpoint, is supported by history) any compromise hurts the effort to return us to the model the Framers intended. That said, it may be as you, and others, have posted that this could be inching us towards CC, in which case I'm all for it.

    My position is also speculation. And I agree that we should move back to the model the Founders intended. Where we seem to disagree is what steps are essential in getting us back there. If Congress was debating nationwide concealed carry when someone stepped up and said "how about we give it to just the police" I would see it as a compromise. But it didn't happen that way. The scope of LEOSA was never that broad. I see LEOSA as a victory. It would be a similar logic as another assault weapons ban. I would view that as a defeat. I wouldn't view it as a compromise because it didn't include all guns.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    And should the non LEO citizen who provided testimony or the non LEO store owner who called the police on the parolee not be extended the same right of self protection? While your position seems reasonable, and I grant you that those who choose to enter law enforcement do tend to encounter society's dreggs more than that of an EAJ (Everyday Average Joe), wouldn't a more sound approach be Constitutional Carry? That would apply to retired LEO as well as the EAJ.

    Every law abiding citizen should have the right to self protection from anyone, not just those against whom he testified. I'd vote for that. Should the LEOSA be repealed until nationwide concealed carry is passed?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    mperr7530

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Dec 22, 2013
    165
    16
    Gonzales, LA
    Every law abiding citizen should have the right to self protection from anyone, not just those against whom he testified. I'd vote for that. Should the LEOSA be repealed until nationwide concealed carry is passed?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Well, I think we agree on the end goal, just disagree on the route to get there. When I see legislation like LEOSA, I envision shady political figures or their lobbist saying things like "We can't give you Constitutional Carry, but if you can get the FoP (Fraternal Order of Police) to come out in favor of Canidate X, we'll give retired LEOs nationwide reciprocity." Maybe that doesn't resemble at all the process that lead to this law; maybe I'm just jaded by the last 20 years of government corruption and overreach, I don't know. But if we had groups like FOP and other LEO agency affliated groups say "No, we want Constitutional Carry or we'll vocally oppose any canidate you put up in the midterms/2020." then we might see movement on it. Just my $0.02 (not seasonally adjusted).
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Well, I think we agree on the end goal, just disagree on the route to get there. When I see legislation like LEOSA, I envision shady political figures or their lobbist saying things like "We can't give you Constitutional Carry, but if you can get the FoP (Fraternal Order of Police) to come out in favor of Canidate X, we'll give retired LEOs nationwide reciprocity." Maybe that doesn't resemble at all the process that lead to this law; maybe I'm just jaded by the last 20 years of government corruption and overreach, I don't know. But if we had groups like FOP and other LEO agency affliated groups say "No, we want Constitutional Carry or we'll vocally oppose any canidate you put up in the midterms/2020." then we might see movement on it. Just my $0.02 (not seasonally adjusted).

    The problem with making the threat to vocally any candidate who doesn't support one specific issue is you have to be willing to back up your threat even if you agree with candidate's stance on the other 99 issues. And not backing that candidate may swing the vote enough to allow the election of an official with whom you agree with on only 1 out of 100 issues. And the FOP represents the police on more than just 2nd amendment. Now if only there were a nationwide group that respresents the everyday average Joe on issues specific to the 2nd amendment.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Cooterbrown

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 4, 2012
    19
    1
    Baton Rouge
    "They" refers to the people who have never had to sit down with their family and have that discussion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    So average law abiding citizens also at risk to be mugged, attacked, or worse, who are equally entitled to the right of self preservation. Post like this just reek of an ‘us verse them’ mentality.
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,222
    Messages
    1,546,091
    Members
    29,168
    Latest member
    Lyle.lejeune2017
    Top Bottom