Cops in SF/NYC should not carry off duty

[atek3]

I'm going to guess that you have more of a problem with a person getting arrested for Possession of Ex, than with what you consider an unconstitutional search. End result: Criminal is punished! Good guys win! This isn't complicated.

Actually I have a problem with both.
The fact that some that our 'duly elected officials' declared inanimate objects like guns and drugs as contraband does irritate me a bit. If some adult wants to drink booze or take drugs why the heck should you give a hoot unless they are doing something unsafe at the same time like driving? And don't give me the 'drugs=crime' connection, remember prohibition? Remember how we placed booze off limits and gangsters went around shooting each other, shooting cops, and protecting their 'turf'. Wow, 70 years later the more things change, the more they stay the same. At least back then the government understood it takes consitutional amendment to run roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth amendment. You've heard of the constitution right? It's that crazy document that says what the government may and may not do. Last time I checked, the constitution never mentioned regulating private behavior among consenting adults. Nowadays, bureaucrats at the DEA can decide essentially on a whim what substances are free and legal and what are verboten, just as the BATFE can declare some firearms 'sporting' and some 'non-sporting'.

Really great, ya good guys, wooo hooo.

atek3

 

[Quartus]

I'm having ttrouble with the "logic" that says that taking away a cop's 2A rights will help me get mine back.

It sounds suspiciously like, " If I can't have it then NOBDOY can have it!"

Just like I remember from playground days.

 

[Matt G]

I'm having ttrouble with the "logic" that says that taking away a cop's 2A rights will help me get mine back.

Precisely.

Now, it's pretty obvious that just about every sworn LEO on this board wants universal carry to capable, non-violent, non-felons.

Does it not also make sense that those sworn LEOs who have been taking some of the violent felons into the Graybar Hotel definitely need to be able to carry when off-duty? Yes, there's lots of non-cops who have as much danger in their lives, but can't we start by agreeing that cops need to? And there is our foot in the door; if an off-duty cop perceives the need, why wouldn't a nurse, a banker, a dock worker, a Kwikee-Mart clerk?

The fact is, the off-duty cop allowance is one of the better arguments there is for universal carry.

 

[hammer4nc]

I'm having ttrouble with the "logic" that says that taking away a cop's 2A rights will help me get mine back.

Funny. I thought it was stated pretty well in the first sentence of this thread:

I don't think that cops should have more rights
then regular citizens.

The essence of the argument (made somewhat tongue in cheek), is that the enforcers should have to live by the same laws as everyone else. Double standards, when applied to a basic right like self defense, have a corrosive effect on respect for law in general. Pretty logical. What makes that so hard to see?

 

[atek3]

Plus it engraines the idea that "citizens don't need guns to protect themselves, cops are omnipresent sentinels"

atek3

 

[Erik]

Off duty LEOs are subject to all of life's nasties that the rest of us are.

(Which is why we should all carry.)

Off duty LEOs are further subjected to the "special recognition" of society's criminal element.

(That targeting is why we tend to get unlisted numbers, addresses, and off duty carrying in less enlightened locals.)

---

Penalize the law makers, not enforcers. Vote accordingly.

 

[Quartus]

Double standards, when applied to a basic right like self defense, have a corrosive effect on respect for law in general.

Very true, and an important point. Too bad that wasn't expressed in the original post.


But cops DON'T have more rights than the rest of us. Under our current messed up 'laws', they are allowed to EXERCISE the rights that we ALL have, but (most of us) are NOT allowed to exercise. Taking that away from THEM doesn't help me.

And while I agree that cops are more likely to need a gun for self defense (yes, criminals do hunt them down from time to time) I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. The RIGHT is not about NEED.* That's why we call it a RIGHT, right? Right.


I understand the logic of getting the cops riled, but I think you misunderstand who will be riled at whom. If gun owners lobby for and succeed at getting the cops off duty carry privileges curtailed or revoked, they will be mad at US, and will follow that up with TWO actions:

1. Work to get their rights back. (And will probably succeed.)
   
2. Work to further deny us OUR rights. Out of spite for some, and because we convinced them that we are their enemy for most of the rest of them.
   [/list=1]
   
   It's not sound in principle, and it's a lousy strategy.
   
   
   
   
   
   *
   (In fact, whether we're talking about off duty cops or Joe Average, the NEED argument is ultimately self defeating. If that's my argument, then if the other side can prove that I don't have a NEED, I don't have the RIGHT.
   
   It's a RIGHT because it's a RIGHT, and the burden of proving that I DON'T have that right is on THEM. Leave it there.)

 

[FedDC]

I would have to agree that it would be nice for folks to be able to carry concealed in all 50 states. I do wonder where the line is drawn though? I would hate for a lot of the thugs I see daily to be armed any more than they already are. We pulled a HK USP 9mm loaded with Hydroshoks off a guy a while back and the gun charge was helpful in the prosecution. Some of these guys have been convicted of dozens of misdemeanors, but no felonies. Most felonies are plead down to misdemeanors. So while I agree that folks should be able to exercise their right to carry a pistol, I would hope that there were some limitations as to who could carry. Otherwise, every thug on the streets would be packin his gat and it would be open season on the cops as well as the general public and since it wouldn't be illegal for them to carry...yeah. So I will admit that I have no problem with folks having to go get a ccw permit where they do a criminal history check and issue a picture identification. It weeds out the thugs. I do hate how expensive it has become and it is distressing that so many are refused over BS reasons.

 

[Quartus]

I understand the problem, and I share your frustration with it. We have a huge problem with our legal system. So fix the legal system. Don't try to bandaid it by denying basic human rights. If a particular person is such a habitual felon that he is a continued danger to society, end the danger. Don't try to do that by taking away rights from a entire CLASS of persons. It'd be hard to get more un-American than that! (But it's a common human reaction, from blissninnies to blind law&order types.)

And don't assume guilty before being proven innocent, which is exactly what a background check system does.

 

[Deepdiver]

Does it not also make sense that those sworn LEOs who have been taking some of the violent felons into the Graybar Hotel definitely need to be able to carry when off-duty? Yes, there's lots of non-cops who have as much danger in their lives, but can't we start by agreeing that cops need to? And there is our foot in the door; if an off-duty cop perceives the need, why wouldn't a nurse, a banker, a dock worker, a Kwikee-Mart clerk?

..as I said in my earlier post, LEO's should be able to carry off duty, just like the rest of us.

There should also be nationwide reciprocity for CCW's - like driver licenses.

The more armed good guys on the street, the better.

 

[Zip06]

While I disagree with your position that cops should not carry off duty, I would agree that penalties for crimes against cops (assault, murder, etc) should not draw any penalty greater than that for the same crime against any citizen. Similarly, the penalties for crimes against federal officials and/or hate crimes should not get the perp any enhanced penalty.

 

[Oracle]

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the 2nd Amendment is very clear in that all persons have the right to keep and bear arms. This doesn't apply differently to police, they should have the same right to keep and bear arms, on or off duty, as everyone else does. However, every time a police officer arrests someone for "illegally carrying a firearm", he is violating their rights under the 2nd Amendment. There is no "middle ground", everyone has a right to bear arms, including police, and including the people that police arrest for exercising their rights.

 

[chas_martel]

FedDC

> I would hate for a lot of the thugs I see daily to be armed any more than they >already are.

How does infringing upon my rights change how a thug is armed.

>We pulled a HK USP 9mm loaded with Hydroshoks off a guy a while back and >the gun charge was helpful in the prosecution.

So just because the justice system is *ucked up and he was not prosecuted
for any of his TRUE crimes you will use a law that affects the good guys to get him? Why did you not post about how you wish the system was more effective in prosecuting him for his REAL crime?

Geez, after reading this thread I am really felling pushed into the "take the guns away from the cops" crowd.

Perhaps you guys do need to feel like us regular "civilians".

Flame away everyone.

 

[Intune]

NO CCW LAWS!

The RIGHT shall NOT be infringed. No license, test or hoop to jump through. User assumes all liability. Carry when, where, what and how you want. Bars, stadiums, parks and the dreaded (gasp) school zone. IF, big IF, that weapon is used in the commission of a crime, you pay the price.

See how easy that is?

:banghead: