HB495

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!
  • met7881

    Former Yankee
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 26, 2013
    132
    18
    mandeville,La.
    Has anyone read the text of this bill. If I read it correctly it allows retired law enforcement to carry anywhere in the state with a permit issued by the sheriff. No restrictions. Even LEOSA has restrictions. Am I missing something? Just because you are "retired" law enforcement what gives these individuals the right for unrestricted carry. They have NO law enforcement authority what so ever. They have NO duty to respond and carry no immunity. Being treated as an equal to law enforcement is a problem. Even LEOSA is a bad precident. All CCW are treated like second class citizens . We have to fight tooth and nail to be able to carry to protect ourselves, while "retired" law enforcment just sit back and enjoy the ability to protect themselves anywhere.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,682
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Has anyone read the text of this bill. If I read it correctly it allows retired law enforcement to carry anywhere in the state with a permit issued by the sheriff. No restrictions. Even LEOSA has restrictions. Am I missing something? Just because you are "retired" law enforcement what gives these individuals the right for unrestricted carry. They have NO law enforcement authority what so ever. They have NO duty to respond and carry no immunity. Being treated as an equal to law enforcement is a problem. Even LEOSA is a bad precident. All CCW are treated like second class citizens . We have to fight tooth and nail to be able to carry to protect ourselves, while "retired" law enforcment just sit back and enjoy the ability to protect themselves anywhere.

    Maybe there will be a "retired" law enforcement officer in those spots to help keep you safe.
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,335
    113
    here
    Has anyone read the text of this bill. If I read it correctly it allows retired law enforcement to carry anywhere in the state with a permit issued by the sheriff. No restrictions. Even LEOSA has restrictions. Am I missing something? Just because you are "retired" law enforcement what gives these individuals the right for unrestricted carry. They have NO law enforcement authority what so ever. They have NO duty to respond and carry no immunity. Being treated as an equal to law enforcement is a problem. Even LEOSA is a bad precident. All CCW are treated like second class citizens . We have to fight tooth and nail to be able to carry to protect ourselves, while "retired" law enforcment just sit back and enjoy the ability to protect themselves anywhere.

    How many people have walked up to you in public when you were with your family and told you they had a problem with you arresting them several years ago? I’m going to guess none. That is one instance why a retired LEO can carry places a civilian with a permit cannot.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    met7881

    Former Yankee
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 26, 2013
    132
    18
    mandeville,La.
    Too bad. Its comes with the territory. Giving retired law enforcement more carry rights is wrong. Maybee we give people who are stalked or victims of domestic violence expanded carry rights also.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,682
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Too bad. Its comes with the territory. Giving retired law enforcement more carry rights is wrong. Maybee we give people who are stalked or victims of domestic violence expanded carry rights also.

    Carry rights for domestic violence victims and carry rights for retired LEO and mutually exclusive. Having a "too bad, it comes with the territory" attitude shows your dislike for the police. And that's fine. But presenting an emotional argument while standing there stomping your feet like a 12 year old and yelling "it's not fair" won't help prove your point. But I think you'd have trouble selling your point anyway. 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.
     

    dougstump

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 22, 2010
    702
    16
    x
    How many people have walked up to you in public when you were with your family and told you they had a problem with you arresting them several years ago? I’m going to guess none. That is one instance why a retired LEO can carry places a civilian with a permit cannot.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    I used to work for a medical insurance company. I've been accosted in public by a former beneficiary because "I didn't pay his medical bills". (He didn't follow the rules of the HMO and it cost him over $10,000 in non-covered charges). While retired and former LEO's can have this problem, so can the rest of us. So why should a former LEO have more rights than the rest of us?

    BTW, in my case,he backed off when he discovered what was poking him in the belly. A S&W snub nose .38. He got REAL polite.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,682
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I used to work for a medical insurance company. I've been accosted in public by a former beneficiary because "I didn't pay his medical bills". (He didn't follow the rules of the HMO and it cost him over $10,000 in non-covered charges). While retired and former LEO's can have this problem, so can the rest of us. So why should a former LEO have more rights than the rest of us?

    BTW, in my case,he backed off when he discovered what was poking him in the belly. A S&W snub nose .38. He got REAL polite.

    So fight to give everyone that right. But until they do, should nobody have it? Should it be an "all or nothing" situation? Should you fight to make sure nobody gets it because not everyone gets it?
     

    tigerfan_9

    1000 Yard Club
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Mar 2, 2009
    342
    16
    New Iberia, LA
    That is where conservatives/republicans typically lose the wars......instead of taking bite by bite they tend to want all or nothing. Liberals have it figured out, you take a bit here then a bit there and before you know it they have taken our freedoms. Just like taxes....if we got a bill for all of the taxes that we actually pay every year there would be a revolution, but they take a bit here, a fee there, etc.
     

    Tboy

    Moving forward
    Rating - 100%
    87   0   0
    Jul 14, 2008
    1,633
    48
    Greenwell Springs
    For those that want to take the time to actually read the proposed changes to the already existing law that the OP is upset about...

    http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1085654

    Take note of the Present law vs Proposed law statements.

    It looks like the biggest take away is that the CLEO shall issue an ID card to retired Leo and makes sure the insane or fired ones don’t get one. Over simplified version...
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,335
    113
    here
    Too bad. Its comes with the territory. Giving retired law enforcement more carry rights is wrong. Maybee we give people who are stalked or victims of domestic violence expanded carry rights also.

    Certain advantages come with the territory also, sorry.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    leadslinger972

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 1, 2017
    983
    16
    St Tammany
    For those that want to take the time to actually read the proposed changes to the already existing law that the OP is upset about...

    http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1085654

    Take note of the Present law vs Proposed law statements.

    It looks like the biggest take away is that the CLEO shall issue an ID card to retired Leo and makes sure the insane or fired ones don’t get one. Over simplified version...

    You think the OP, who is rambling about how he thinks it's unfair, actually read the bill for what it is?

    Sounds like the OP is just complaining in general, not specifically about the bill.

    But they have friends and family that are LEO’s

    "I gotta speedin' ticket. Can you fix it?"
     

    RaleighReloader

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    32   0   0
    Jan 30, 2015
    1,175
    48
    Baton Rouge, LA
    The wording that this bill cleans up seems reasonable enough, so I wouldn't object to it on that principle.

    I do, however, generally disagree with conferring special carrying privileges on small segments of the population. My objection comes more from the idea that carrying a firearm becomes a "special" privilege accorded to a few. This plays right into the lefty ideology that guns should be a narrowly carved out privilege accorded to a few people, and not a broadly observed right as protected by the Bill of Rights.

    Incrementalism is good for us when it applies to all of us.

    Mike
     

    leadslinger972

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 1, 2017
    983
    16
    St Tammany
    The wording that this bill cleans up seems reasonable enough, so I wouldn't object to it on that principle.

    I do, however, generally disagree with conferring special carrying privileges on small segments of the population. My objection comes more from the idea that carrying a firearm becomes a "special" privilege accorded to a few. This plays right into the lefty ideology that guns should be a narrowly carved out privilege accorded to a few people, and not a broadly observed right as protected by the Bill of Rights.

    Incrementalism is good for us when it applies to all of us.

    Mike

    It's a right.

    Until you realize there are consequences for exercising your right.

    Is that right?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,682
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    The wording that this bill cleans up seems reasonable enough, so I wouldn't object to it on that principle.

    I do, however, generally disagree with conferring special carrying privileges on small segments of the population. My objection comes more from the idea that carrying a firearm becomes a "special" privilege accorded to a few. This plays right into the lefty ideology that guns should be a narrowly carved out privilege accorded to a few people, and not a broadly observed right as protected by the Bill of Rights.

    Incrementalism is good for us when it applies to all of us.

    Mike

    If you were to walk into the 19th Judicial District Court downtown on North Blvd, you will have to walk through a set of metal detectors. When you get to the court rooms, you will see armed LEOs. Based on what you just posted, do you feel the LEOs should disarm themselves or do you feel you should be allowed to carry a weapon into the court room?
     

    Latest posts

    Members online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,035
    Messages
    1,544,735
    Members
    29,121
    Latest member
    Nexus2024
    Top Bottom