If they so desire. Just like any other citizen should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
Okie John
If they so desire. Just like any other citizen should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
Okie John
That is a 2A issue that can be resolved either by obtaining a CCW or where it exists, Constitutional Carry. These options are widely available, though not everywhere (I believe that we know which States those are), for just those needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
No difference in my state, assuming you have a license to carry a handgun.
Not in free America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
I grew up in NY and now live in TX. I basically feel like the Cuban exiles in Miami so you are not telling me anything I have not experienced.
Even as a Federal LEO if I went back to NY I could not own NFA items and when I retired high cap mags and so called “assault weapons would be an issue.
In other words this is a problem with your state not a problem with LE.
In my state, if you have a LTC/CHL there is very little difference other than a few places LE can carry.
On an unrelated note, other than temporary locked storage because you have to go into an NPE, leaving a pistol in your car is stupid and irresponsible. If you can legally carry your gun carry, cars are not holsters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by okie john
Assume you are talking about shall issue states. In fact wasn’t there a law suit of just such an issue in Suffolk County NY ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
Again, the real answer to that is shall issue CCW or constitutional carry.
"Other than a few places LE can carry" is my main beef. Georgia is shall issue and has no magazine or weapon type restrictions, but LE and a few other "special" people are exempted from off limits places.
Well, that, and places like MA, CA, NY, etc. But I also don't think police should be able to use any firearm that an average Joe like me can't legally purchase or own.
I detest "I'm special and the rules don't apply to me" no matter who says it.
You'll notice, in fairness, that on this site, at least, you'll be hard put to find any LEOs who put themselves above their fellow citizens or who think and opine that they are special cases. On the other hand, there seem to be at least a few here who revel in unilaterally creating and feeding "us vs. them" controversies.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtae07
Go figure.
I think this is on point.Quote:
Originally Posted by blues
OP/these questions reek of seeking validation and creating an argument by way of phrasing the question in a no-win sort of structure.
I was a private citizen carrying on a CCW permit way before I became a LEO carrying on agency authority. Simply through the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I don't think citizens should be prevented from carrying any type of weapon in public places that LEOs can. If a cop can own/employ a Glock 19 with Taran Tactical extensions, so should a private citizen. If cops employ AR15 patrol rifles, citizens should be allowed to have them as well.
That doesn't mean that I should be restricted to carrying what local citizens are bound to when I travel or work in ban states, however. Two wrongs does not make a right, and when I was a private citizen carrying with a CCW permit I never felt the need to create a us vs. them argument, or that LEOs should be restricted to what we (private citizens) were restricted to.
I've heard that if cops were automatically included in bans on weaponry the same as private citizens, then the RKBA issue would get pushed by LE agencies as well. What I think would happen instead is that you'd see even more de-policing than we already have going on. Cops would become watchmen, not patrolmen. It wouldn't change shit for the better.
So here is my thinking on this. Two parts:Quote:
Originally Posted by gtae07
1) Like LEOSA, the public has spent good money to train LEOs and having them armed off duty, is BOTH a personal benefit to the LEO and a public benefit increasing the odds of a person who is both armed and trained being present when something bad happens. An example that comes to mind is the retired NYPD officer who shot a crazy homeless dude with a sword on the Staten Island ferry some years back.
Remember the trained part.
2) Most cops are not gun people and by PF standards they are not very highly trained HOWEVER, compared to most LTC holders both PF people and cops are “the 1%.” There are some non LEO PF people locally I shoot with and based on our conversations and public range experiences they would agree with me re: training / skill level of most of the LTC holders we see. An example of the latter group is the men’s group at a church I used to attend. All good people but the idea of hitting something with a pistol beyond 7 yards or a sub 2 second draw to a shot was kinda foreign to them.
As nice as those people are I would not be comfortable with them trying to take a shot in a crowded church, school etc ..
Now the counter argument to this is also two parts:
1) A lot of problems are solved simply by having a gun - many examples of this in the old American Rifleman “armed citizen”
2) A lot of problems are solved by untrained or minimally trained people via a combination of luck and decisiveness I.e. doing something right now > doing something better later.
Coming back around to training, we also have to look at Claude Werner’s “negative outcomes.” This is where training comes in. What training gives us is a systematic way to try and minimize, though not eliminate, negative outcomes in defensive gun use.
Yes they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Black Belt
And if the gun laws are restrictive to the point they pose a danger to said officers then they should be changed. The changes should apply to both LEOs and non-LEOs.
Law enforcement officers are citizens. Citizens have the right to arm themselves. The laws of our nation and states should support that.