HR218: This Will Affect Everybody

[40ozflatfoot]

At the moment, HR218 isn't going anywhere because the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is holding it up from discussion.

That can't last forever. Sooner or later one of the demos will wrench it loose, and it will go to the committee. Judging by the support it has in the House, it could very well go the way of the campaign finance bill that just got signed into law.

So, how about it? Is it a good idea, or a bad one?

Just in case you may have not had the time to reserch it, here are some links:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27299

http://keepandbeararms.com/CopsOnlyCCW/

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.218:


I'm especially interested in hearing from the LEO community.

 

[Bulldog44]

I think that this will probably pass eventually, unfortunately. I think that LEO's should be able to carry a concealed firearm wherever they travel, but since the bill as currently written doesn't extend to non-LEO citizens, it should be shot down.

 

[EnochGale]

This bill has been debate into the ground here and on other forums. I will summarize:

1. Pro
Cops are at differential risk out of state when on vacation, etc.
Cops will act as cops while on vacation out of state and need their gun
It will aid in the RKBA battle as antis will see the cops and transfer this halo to the civilian CCW type

2. Anti:
No special privileges for anyone.
The vacaction risk is not empirically demonstrated. A tourist in NY is a tourist in NY
It will not benefit the RKBA. Police are seen as a special class even by some antis, if they get privilege - it won't help up.
Major police figures are continually antigun. The progun police voices are few as compared to the overwhelming anti attitude of the police hierarchy.
Progun cops on this list and in Mayberry aren't really relevant to to the big debate. Unless we get strong organized LEO support for CCW, it is a bad deal for us.

I support #2 - no special privileges. The average cop on vacation is not at differential risk. Don't act like a cop when you are out of town. Throw out your union bosses who are antigun. A CCW reciprocity bill for all citizens take cares of cops also. Fight for that.

 

[DeputyVaughn]

I reluctntly support position #1. I don't see myself as a privilaged citizen, but I support any law abiding individuals right to carry. I beleive that passing H.R.218 is a step in the right direction. I'll bet it will put more cops on the streets than anything Clinton ever signed into law.

Scott

 

[LonWilson]

www.keepandbeararms.com/CopsOnlyCCW

Nuff said.

 

[40ozflatfoot]

This bill has been debate into the ground here and on other forums.

Oh, I see. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience. I looked for other threads here that addressed the subject, but didn't find any.

I felt that, since it is still an active topic of discussion on two other gun-related web sites, and still a front-page subject for presentation on the keepandbeararms web site, it was worthy of continuing discussion here. I see now that I was wrong.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Maybe if it passes, some county in Nevada can be convinced to issue deputizations (is that a word?) for a fee.

I'd have to put myself in group 2 also. No special privlidges. I also don't like laws mandating tougher penalties for crimes against cops.

 

[John/az2]

Frankly, I see a lot of whining on the side of those who want it passed.

To them I say, "Tough! You're off duty, you get to suffer the same stifling laws that we, the non-LEO suffers under. There is absolutely nothing that makes your family more valuable than mine. There is nothing that makes your life more valuable than mine. If you want my support start lobbying for either a complete restoration of the 2nd Amendment as it was meant to be, or for a national CCW for all people regardless of LEO affiliation."

 

[40ozflatfoot]

If anyone was wondering, I'm against it, too.

What I would like to know is how they can justify it on the grounds that there would be more armed cops on the streets and in the shops and restaurants to "protect..." us, I suppose, when the SCOTUS has already said that cops are under no obligation to come to our rescue when we need 'em.

In addition, theyhaven't convinced me that the training they supposedly get makes them more "qualified" to carry than anyone else. It has already been shown that no amount of training can prepare anyone for that first trial by fire, and there ain't that many cops with that experience.

Then, of course, there's the record. Literally thousands of cases have been documented showing private citizens' use of guns to stop criminals.

The only real thing HR218 will do is open the door wider for future revokation of citizen CCW. What that will do is already happening in the UK.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

As a retired Federal law enforcement officer who ardently believes in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I am deeply dismayed by the opposition of some gun rights advocates to HR 218, exempting current and honorably retired LEOs from state and local concealed weapons prohibitions. I regard this law as a positive step in restoring firearms rights for everyone.

First of all, let me say that I believe the 2nd Amendment means just what it says, and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There should be no “concealed weapons” permit required anywhere in this country. Felons and the mentally impaired should have their drivers licenses or state-issued IDs marked to alert LEOs to their ineligibility to possess firearms, but all other citizens should be automatically authorized to carry weapons when- and wherever they choose.

I am especially saddened by the petulant tone of many arguments made by gun rights advocates in opposing this legislation: “If I can’t have it, why should they? They’re no better than I am.” That’s not quite true. While I’m certain that many firearms afficionados are better than the average police officer at target, and even combat target shooting; as a group they don’t have the training and experience in handling potentially violent situations that LEOs have. Their arguments that LEOs shoot far more “innocent” or unarmed persons than do armed citizens are specious. LEOs have a duty to intervene in potentially violent situations and to stop dangerous suspects when armed citizens do not. True, they make a lot of mistakes they shouldn’t make. But the vast majority of these mistakes occur in situations in which the prudent armed citizen would not choose to act at all.

We decry the incremental approach used by gun control advocates to gradually deprive us of more and more of our rights. But we must recognize that it is effective. We should therefore be willing to embrace this approach in taking back our rights. HR 218 is a step in this direction. Many of the same arguments are being used against it as are being used against shall-issue concealed weapons laws and universal reciprocity. The public is more willing to support universal LEO concealed carry at this point in time. Let’s work to get it passed. Then, a couple of years hence, we can point out that the dire predications of the antis were groundless, and if LEOs have not caused “blood running in the streets,” there is no reason to believe that trained citizens holding concealed weapons permits would do so. Parenthetically, let me state that while I believe it is prudent for armed citizens to avail themselves of legal and tactical training, I don’t believe that it should be required as a condition of exercising their 2nd Amendment rights any more than a “literacy test” should be required in order to exercise the right to vote. We’ve been down that road before. Finally, when “trained” CCW holders have universal reciprocity, perhaps the country will be ready to accept Vermont-style universal carry under the 2nd Amendment.

The time to act on this bill is now, while public concern over terrorists among us has created a climate more favorable to the notion of carrying concealed firearms to defend self and country. I urge gun rights advocates to reconsider their opposition to this law.

 

[Correia]

It puts more armed good folks on the street. Sounds good to me.

It isn't the average beat cop, or rural deputy that is depriving you of your rights. I would like to carry on vacation, why shouldn't they? Just because I can't doesn't mean that I would wish that on anybody else.

Then again, I choose to spend my vacation money in states that don't have a problem with my being armed.

 

[fix]

We should therefore be willing to embrace this approach in taking back our rights.

Taking back your rights. Not flaming, I just had to point that out. Regardless of the intent, the bill does elevate LEOs to a "higher class" than everyone else. Some people are happy being sheep. LEOs prefer to be shephards. Me, I choose neither. I'm a goat. I'll take care of myself, thank you very much and you shouldn't have any more right to that than I do.

as a group they don’t have the training and experience in handling potentially violent situations that LEOs have

Although I know it was unintentional on your part, I think that that statement came across as typical elitist drivel. There are an awful lot of Veterans out here in the real world who have more time staring at the elephant than the majority of LEOs. To suggest that a 22 year old deputy in a small town is more qualified to do anything in a "violent situation" than a seasoned combat veteran is nothing but an insult. I live next door to an insurance salesman that could visit nearly any agency in the country and proceed to put on a kindergarten style clinic for their best shooters, with nearly any weapon...in nearly any environment. He spent 13 years in one of the "units that shall not be discussed" (SFOD-D). Who would you rather have carrying?

Don't get me wrong. If I were on the other side of the blue line, I'd be looking out for my interests too. I don't fault you for that. I just want you to understand why so many people are angered by the bill.

 

[LonWilson]

As a retired Federal law enforcement officer who ardently believes in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I am deeply dismayed by the opposition of some gun rights advocates to HR 218, exempting current and honorably retired LEOs from state and local concealed weapons prohibitions. I regard this law as a positive step in restoring firearms rights for everyone.

I don't believe so. The problem is that if cops only get full CCW rights throughout the entire country, they will not support the same for citizens. It is a valid concern. Once they get carry, why should they care about regular citizens?

I believe that s. 514 and H.R. 950 is the best solutions. Here's what it would do. You can carry across state lines, regardless of state law, if you qualify under 2 circumstances:

1. You have a license to carry issued by your home state. If you are a Florida resident, and you have a Florida CWFL, your permit is valid in all 50 states, and DC, even if such states prohibit it, if you follow the laws as to where either a CCW holder cannot carry, or specific prohibitions other than the prohibition of carrying a concealed handgun (Ohio, even though they prohibit carry, at the moment, has further prohibitions against carry in bars, with stricter penalties than regular carry. You have to follow those). It also says that out of state residents with a home state CCW doesn't have to worry about local laws, only state. Live in Lake County, Indiana? Work in Chicago, Morton Grove, or Oak Park? No problem. Your Indiana carry permit is completely valid, even though Chicago, Morton Grove, and Oak Park prohibit possession of handguns, and IL prohibits concealed carry entirely. State laws specific to firearms on certain grounds only. Same for N. Virginians who work in D.C. Heck, your carry permit would cover your butt in NYC!!

2. Your home state gives you the right to carry without a permit needed. Vermont residents qualify for this, and Ohio resident may do so if the court cases work out there. For that purpose, a driver license or state ID card is enough. Also, if you're law enforcenment, and you are given the right to carry without the need for a permit by law, you can also carry across state lines without a permit. Yes, even the places mentioned above.

 

[moa]

Something to ponder. How many LEOs are directly attacked by an armed robber, rapist, carjacker, or whatever? How many times are uniformed LEOs directly attacked just walking down the street, getting into their vehicles, operating their place of business, laying in bed, being stalked, etc.?

Day for day, person for person, on average I bet many more non-LEOs are directly attacked with often deadly force and direct criminal intent.

Most serious criminals do not normally challenge LEOs with deadly force. The know the criminal justice system and how the odds are stacked in their favor most of the time. That is, as long as the do not resort to violence.

So, to me, both LEOs and non-LEOs should be carrying with no distinctions between the two.

Incidentally it has been cited in various RKBA publications that there is less crime commited on a percentage basis by CCW holders than LEOs. Some police agencies are worse than others and have notorious reputations. Look at the LAPD Ramparts Division or the Prince Georges County, MD. police as two prime examples of excessive force, violence and corruption.

 

[mjustice]

I have a few problems with this bill:

Equal Protection - Off-Duty cops are citizens just like the rest of us. When they leave their home states, they have no more rights than anyone else. They cannot arrest, they cannot detain, they have no "special rights and privleges".

Training - This bill has no provisions for training. I'm not talking about marksmanship, either. CCW holders have to know the laws regarding the use of deadly force in their states. The rules for police are usually different. What guarantee do we the sheeple have that cops are going to learn (and respect) the civilian deadly force laws?

Unconstitutional - This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Interstate Commerce. Congress has no right to regulate possession of firearms in any state. This bill is not exercising their rights or powers as enumerated in the constitution.

Their authority in this arena stops at the DC border - speaking of which, DC carry is NOT allowed under the current bill. "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" - DC is not a state or political subdivision thereof.

Those who argue that this is a "stepping stone" for civilian CCW are mistaken. Civilian CCW under such a bill would be eqaully unconstitutional. For this to work, there would need to be a reciprocity compact, similar to the one used for driver's licenses. Because gun possession and CCW are state's rights.

Section 3 of the bill - RETIRED COPS?! They don't train (professionally), they don't qualify with guns anymore - they are average citizens. In most states, they have no special rights.

After reading this, I made up my mind that this bill has nothing to do with protecting our communities, and is little more than a FOP perk.

I have a ton of respect for police and the hard work they do. But this bill causes too many problems and too much resentment for it to be effective. Cops who are acting lawfully in Montana may get busted for brandishing in Times Square.

MJ

 

[LonWilson]

Unconstitutional - This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Interstate Commerce. Congress has no right to regulate possession of firearms in any state. This bill is not exercising their rights or powers as enumerated in the constitution.

This bill would be unconstitutional for law enforcement. However, if SAFE (s 514 and HR 950) would be passed, it would be something that can be done via Article 4 Section 1 of the constitutional. Read it.

Their authority in this arena stops at the DC border - speaking of which, DC carry is NOT allowed under the current bill. "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" - DC is not a state or political subdivision thereof.

Read the Chapter definitions in 18USC921. State shall include the District of Columbia in the same way as it applies to a state.

Those who argue that this is a "stepping stone" for civilian CCW are mistaken. Civilian CCW under such a bill would be eqaully unconstitutional. For this to work, there would need to be a reciprocity compact, similar to the one used for driver's licenses. Because gun possession and CCW are state's rights.

Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong. They are NOT states rights in terms of interstate travel. Driver license reciprocity may have been compact in the past, but Congress passed laws making a driver license valid in all 50 states. Again, Check A4S1 of the US Constitutional. Full Faith and Credit, remember?

The SAFE act (the one I support, not HR218) would only allow firearms regulation state residents only. If they have a carry permit, or are otherwise provided the true right to carry by law (as the 2nd amendment originally intended), they can carry in any state, period. Even places that ban handguns.

This has nothing to do with Interstate Commerce. This has to do with full faith and credit.

That being said, I absolutely oppose HR 218. No special rights for cops, please. I want to carry in NJ, or NY, or IL, or wherever I travel.

 

[Bulldog44]

I am especially saddened by the petulant tone of many arguments made by gun rights advocates in opposing this legislation: “If I can’t have it, why should they? They’re no better than I am.” That’s not quite true. While I’m certain that many firearms afficionados are better than the average police officer at target, and even combat target shooting; as a group they don’t have the training and experience in handling potentially violent situations that LEOs have.

I know quite a few policemen who couldn't hit the ground with a .22. I also know more than a few who have the attitude "Man, you even look at me wrong and I'll shoot." Also, I don't think you meant it quite the way it appears, but your response of "that's not quite true" being made to the assertion of "they're no better than I am" isn't going to help either. That's exactly the stand that the anti's hold.

As I stated above, I do believe that LEOs should be able to carry concealed anywhere. But saying that LEOs have this right when the rest of us do not is going along with current "anti" thinking: the cops should be armed, and no one else should be. This isn't a first step toward the reclamation of gun rights, it's the first step in the further polarization of "those who should be versus those who shouldn't be armed", in typical "anti" parlance.

Some see good things coming of the trend that many areas are following in adopting CCW statutes. I think that (a) this is our right and we shouldn't have to be proud to have the government authorities acknowledge this right (even though they view it as a "state-sanctioned privilege" and (b) this penchant for CCW is not necessarily permanent. They "made" the laws, they can "unmake" them. To employ a useful analogy, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

 

[WyldOne]

Sorry, but I don't see this as a stepping stone. Anti's frequently state that they support banning guns except for the military and the police.

This is not a positive step for us, it's their ultimate goal.

Add to that, I don't understand how someone's occupation makes them more worthy of protecting themselves. Cops are people too. Therefore, they should be subject to the same rules that we are.

Special treatment for no one.

 

[LonWilson]

WyldOne is right. This would be used against regular gun owners as a hammer.

"Why should we support gun ownership? Cops can carry in all 50 states! Ban all civilian owned guns!!"

Which is why I support the SAFE act than the Community Protection Act.

 

[Monkeyleg]

If off-duty officers could carry anywhere right now, I wouldn't be upset in any way. But, politically, I don't see this as a "steppingstone" to national concealed carry for all. The most effective way to change the minds of the uneducated public on concealed carry is to get cops in front of the cameras talking in favor of it. If and when LEO's get nationwide concealed carry for themselves, there will be little incentive for them to enter the fray on behalf of the rest of us (except for the few who are ardent RKBA activists).

Here in WI, we've had the police associations pushing for CCW for retired officers, and that failed. We've had correctional officers trying to get CCW for themselves, and they failed. Private investigators have tried as well, and they failed. Each group is too small to effectively lobby the legislators. The best and only way is to join the masses of the great unwashed and do it with numbers.