Special Gun Rights Given to Police But Not to You

[Creedmoor]

Or you could simply dedicate twenty years of your life to law enforcement.

And why should that be the reason for Extra Rights?

 

[Ziggidy]

Or you could simply dedicate twenty years of your life to law enforcement.

That does not make you any more efficient with a gun than anyone else.

 

[Ziggidy]

I think it's prudent to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills to engage in an activity that potentially dangerous to others.

So you can drive a car, so tell me why there are so many accidents? Aren't there more vehicle accidents than gun accidents?

BTW, I am not speaking of leading cause of deaths, I speaking of accidents.

 

[Thor]

Or you could simply dedicate twenty years of your life to law enforcement.

Or the military.

Or being a legal citizen.

 

[chipbennett]

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) was passed in 2004. Qualified active and retired officers have been able to carry across state lines for the last 20 years. The new bill just adds a few additional exemptions to prohibitions and modified training/qualifcation requirements. It is not primarily focused on gun-free school zones.

Active police officers can already carry on campus, and I'm not sure what business a retired officer has "protecting children" on campus if he's retired and not working for the school, other than if a rare incident should occur when he/she is dropping off a child. In any event, anybody who can legally carry can have a firearm in their vehicle while dropping off or picking up their child in Indiana.

LEOSA was unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection when passed originally, and remains unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection as enhanced.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, we are.

That LEO continue to support, if not gloat about, their unequal protection under the law is... really not a good look.

 

[Route 45]

LEOSA was unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection when passed originally, and remains unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection as enhanced.

Probably. So what?

Oh, you think the Constitution or rule of law matters anymore?

Might want to brush up on current events.

 

[chipbennett]

Seems like the simple solution would be to allow "civilians" with LTCH to qualify on the same course?
I can't seem to find the course of fire (30 rounds)for retired officers but did locate the course of fire for current officers, it appears similar to the FBI course. It doesn't appear to be overwhelming although I doubt most LTCH holders could pass it. Anyone know what the 30 round course of fire for a retired officer is?

https://faqs.in.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115005064427-What-is-the-ILEA-s-Qualification-Handgun-Course

The simple solution would be to honor 2A protections nationwide. I don't see anything in 2A about needing annual requalification.

If you want to limit nationwide carry to those who have a state-issued carry license, I would accept that as a reasonable starting point. After all, such licenses should have full faith and credit in every state, as per the legal theory articulated in Obergefell.

 

[chipbennett]

Probably. So what?

Oh, you think the Constitution or rule of law matters anymore?

Might want to brush up on current events.

I understand the lay of the land.

My issue is that too many LEO otherwise support 2A, but hide behind their LEOSA privilege, instead of standing up for their fellow citizens' rights by arguing that LEOSA is unconstitutional.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree but this point not an issue in Indiana with constitutional carry. Personally I think there should be a qualification for a LTCH and I know some disagree but, like driving I think it's prudent to demonstrate basic knowledge and skills to engage in an activity that potentially dangerous to others. Not "Navy Seal" skills but qualification akin to what retired LEOs are required to do. Working as RSO at a public range gave me a perspective of how much of a danger, to themselves and others, many people are that carry a gun. A 12 year old can buy a car drive in their back yard but I think it's only prudent to expect someone to have basic skills to operate one on public. I feel the same about a firearm. If that doesn't seem logical tell me where I'm going wrong?

Why?

Setting aside, for the sake of argument, the obvious issue of it being unconstitutional: what goal would you hope to accomplish with such a requirement? What problem do you propose to solve by such a requirement? And please explain exactly how that requirement would solve that specific problem and/or achieve that specific goal?

 

[chipbennett]

Or you could simply dedicate twenty years of your life to law enforcement.

Which other natural rights - explicitly constitutionally protected or otherwise - would be reasonable to require 20 years of service in order to exercise freely?

 

[Leo]

Which other natural rights - explicitly constitutionally protected or otherwise - would be reasonable to require 20 years of service in order to exercise freely?

If being able to use the language correctly and being able articulate coherent sentences was required for the First Amendment, Few would have that right. The people that were installed in the executive branch certainly would not qualify.

 

[Gabriel]

Which other natural rights - explicitly constitutionally protected or otherwise - would be reasonable to require 20 years of service in order to exercise freely?

I do believe it's actually only ten years.

 

[Gabriel]

That LEO continue to support, if not gloat about, their unequal protection under the law is... really not a good look.

I don't know. I think I look pretty fabulous.

 

[Leo]

From a bargaining table point of view, if any segment of a group already has something, it is easier to bargain for other segments to also receive that benefit. The hill to climb gets shorter.

If Citizens that were in Law Enforcement have nation wide rights, it is easier to add auxiliary officers, and special officers, and security workers, watchmen, bus drivers, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Gabriel]

From a bargaining table point of view, if any segment of a group already has something, it is easier to bargain for other segments to also receive that benefit. The hill to climb gets shorter.

If Citizens that were in Law Enforcement have nation wide rights, it is easier to add auxiliary officers, and special officers, and security workers, watchmen, bus drivers, etc, etc, etc.

I believe that is how this law was originally framed to garner support, but in twenty years that has not happened.

 

[NHT3]

I wish people wanted to practice but I disagree on requiring any kind of minimum standards. And I sure wouldn’t use driving as an example for proving one’s proficiency.

I mean most everyone took a drivers course and everybody with a valid license took and passed a test with “Minimum Standards” yet look at I 465, I 70, I 65, US 40, (pick a road) yeah how’s those minimum standards working out!!!

You don’t have to pass a “test” to practice any other constitutional right!

Off topic but related if you go to a LEOSA qualification my buddy Darryl Bolke made a good point. That is perfect proof that suggesting a revolver isn’t always a bad thing. Here is a group of folks that had a 20-30 year career of qualification yet here they are fiddle farting around hardly able to keep an auto loaded or running because they forgot how to or simply can’t work the slide. But everyone can open a cylinder!

So again wether a current LEO qualifying for their agency or some Retiree at a LEOSA course here is a annual “minimum score” requirement that 80% of Officers meet barely pass and 1 They never get any better and 2 are the ones involved in the Officer Involved Shootings that turn into utter abortions!

It’s the same with average gun owners so if you are the one running it a qualification requirement will make you pull your hair out and is scary as hell!

You made my point. Even after passing a so called driving test very few are competent drivers but hopefully it improves the odds. I'm not up for denying anyone their right to own a gun but carrying "mexican" is beyond a bad idea and possibly some training might force some to think about the responsibility involved in carrying a firearm in public.

 

[NHT3]

Or you could simply dedicate twenty years of your life to law enforcement.

I had a couple of good friends, both unfortunately have passed that did just that but they agreed with me. Because I choose a different career path should not limit my constitutional right. I'm pretty certain that "equal under the law" means just that.

 

[NHT3]

So you can drive a car, so tell me why there are so many accidents? Aren't there more vehicle accidents than gun accidents?

BTW, I am not speaking of leading cause of deaths, I speaking of accidents.

Nothing accidental about someone getting distracted texting and knocking down a mail box and there's nothing accidental about someone depressing the trigger on a firearm and a bullet going down the barrel. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

 

[NHT3]

Why?

Setting aside, for the sake of argument, the obvious issue of it being unconstitutional: what goal would you hope to accomplish with such a requirement? What problem do you propose to solve by such a requirement? And please explain exactly how that requirement would solve that specific problem and/or achieve that specific goal?

For those that pay attention education should equate to safety. Some will never listen but I believe practice and training should be stressed when someone goes into the public arena carrying a loaded gun for their own safety as well as the safety of others. Just as some should no be driving because they are inept I think the same should apply for carrying a firearm. Actually I'm not suggesting mandatory training simply because I know the miscreant politician making the decision on what the training consisted of would have little or no knowledge of firearms. Politicians gonna politic so we are stuck with what we have but I don't have to be comfortable with the goofs I've witnessed while doing RSO duties at public ranges.