A posting worth posting....
I posted the following on a messageboard. I think it is also worthy of blogdum.
I thought you all may get a interest out of this bill.
http://www.leaa.org/218/summary.html
What it does it it allows all off duty and retired law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the U.S. I see this as a bit of discussion material.
For:
1. Allows more guns on the street in law abiding hands, something I am for. (I am for all citizens who have no criminal record a right to carry.)
2. Police Officers make a lot of enemies and should be protected after they hang up their badge.
3. I may be a cop some day, could be a nice bonus my way.
4. If it is proven that on the street cops can handle bad situations and help prevent crime, maybe the more liberal and middle of the road politicians will allow conceal and carry in their jurisdictions.
Against:
1. Makes a second class citizen status out of everyone else. Why should police officers get special protection from bad people when any women who has a restraining order against a violent husband can't get one? And why do they get a special status based on their job? If you are a 7-11 employee, taxi drivier, or even a pizza deliveryman you are more likely to be gunned down.
2. Law Enforcement vs Citizen carry. All the officers I have met support citizens carrying guns. When well trained and with little or no criminal history a lot of bad things are prevented from happening. And they know this. But most Law Enforcement Agencies and higher echelons don't like, in fact loathe the idea of trained citizens getting the right to carry. Why is this? Trained citizens are more accurate, get involved in less unjustifiable shootings,(8 percent vs 14 percent for cops,) and are more likely to change the outcome of a crime in progess. Law Enforcement rarely prevents crime. It either investigates and solves it or cleans up and has a open case. This legislation here can and may put a divide in law enforcement supporting citizen right to carry.
3. Other interested parties:
WHy can law enforcement and not ex military carry? What about highly trained security guards? (a lot of security is a joke but about 17 percent are better trained than the average police officer.) And what about those who have special needs? Witness protection? Restraining order? Previous cases of abuse? These are people that are also at risk, a greater one at that, and they are only ignored by the legislators.
So the question is, who do you support and why?
For me it is a really hard to answer question. Originally I was all for equal protection, no one but all getting the rights and powers of one law. A bit of thinking over it and then I was middle of the road, seeing pluses but negatives. After seeing a certain law enforcement page I am slightly for it, if for no reason seeing how supportive of firearms rights they are. But it is a mixed bag of the umphteenth degree since we all know the first tool of big brother is law enforcement officers willing to stomp anyones rights just to get a piece of adrenal action.
I thought you all may get a interest out of this bill.
http://www.leaa.org/218/summary.html
What it does it it allows all off duty and retired law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the U.S. I see this as a bit of discussion material.
For:
1. Allows more guns on the street in law abiding hands, something I am for. (I am for all citizens who have no criminal record a right to carry.)
2. Police Officers make a lot of enemies and should be protected after they hang up their badge.
3. I may be a cop some day, could be a nice bonus my way.
4. If it is proven that on the street cops can handle bad situations and help prevent crime, maybe the more liberal and middle of the road politicians will allow conceal and carry in their jurisdictions.
Against:
1. Makes a second class citizen status out of everyone else. Why should police officers get special protection from bad people when any women who has a restraining order against a violent husband can't get one? And why do they get a special status based on their job? If you are a 7-11 employee, taxi drivier, or even a pizza deliveryman you are more likely to be gunned down.
2. Law Enforcement vs Citizen carry. All the officers I have met support citizens carrying guns. When well trained and with little or no criminal history a lot of bad things are prevented from happening. And they know this. But most Law Enforcement Agencies and higher echelons don't like, in fact loathe the idea of trained citizens getting the right to carry. Why is this? Trained citizens are more accurate, get involved in less unjustifiable shootings,(8 percent vs 14 percent for cops,) and are more likely to change the outcome of a crime in progess. Law Enforcement rarely prevents crime. It either investigates and solves it or cleans up and has a open case. This legislation here can and may put a divide in law enforcement supporting citizen right to carry.
3. Other interested parties:
WHy can law enforcement and not ex military carry? What about highly trained security guards? (a lot of security is a joke but about 17 percent are better trained than the average police officer.) And what about those who have special needs? Witness protection? Restraining order? Previous cases of abuse? These are people that are also at risk, a greater one at that, and they are only ignored by the legislators.
So the question is, who do you support and why?
For me it is a really hard to answer question. Originally I was all for equal protection, no one but all getting the rights and powers of one law. A bit of thinking over it and then I was middle of the road, seeing pluses but negatives. After seeing a certain law enforcement page I am slightly for it, if for no reason seeing how supportive of firearms rights they are. But it is a mixed bag of the umphteenth degree since we all know the first tool of big brother is law enforcement officers willing to stomp anyones rights just to get a piece of adrenal action.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home