HR 218 passes Senate & House

[manwithoutahome]

Bad bill.

Once they get CCW for all LEO's and Retires then the anti's are going to really hit the "only cops should have guns and they will protect you and now they can protect you all the time no matter where you are"....

And thus, it will come. Why do us "civilians" need guns since any active duty LEO and retired LEO can carry and they will be there to protect you.

Bad bill. Why didn't they include active duty military, retired military and those who have been in the military?

We received the same training. We had to qualify and we had to carry our weapons the same as the LEO's.

Bad bill. This is not going to go in our favor.

And, did frankenstein attach her bill?

Wayne

 

[Ellery Holt]

Shootcraps writes:

...and starts acting like a cop and starts pushing citizens around?

I'm not sure how this sentence is supposed to read. Freudian slip?

 

[Ex-Doc]

"the general public won't find someone coming at them that they put in jail a few years ago."

Last time I checked jurys put criminals in jail, who are made up of the general public! this is an equal protection issue that needs to be addressed

Evicted tenants, disgrunteled employees, psycho ex-partners, i could go on and on on those who do come after others....

A hillbilly judge dred running around out of bounds, no thanks.

 

[Shootcraps]

Sorry. Not very clear. Will some leo's take this as a license to be a cop in places where they have no police powers?

I.E., Legally, a Houston cop in Hackensack has no police powers. But will Hackensack police be so anxious to prosecute a Houston cop who oversteps the bound of the national ccw? Or will the "code" of the leo prevail and the Houston cop will not be hassled, whereas a non-leo would be hauled off to jail in a heartbeat?

 

[Coronach]

I dislike the inequalities present under the current system, and as such I also dislike the inequalities under this bill. For a bit of background, I'm from a CCW state, and at 21 years old I had my first CCW permit. I then moved to a state with no CCW. I then became a cop in that state, and was allowed to CCW. Now the state as a whole has a (pretty whacked out, I'll admit) CCW law. I wholeheartedly support CCW for citizens in general.

That said, I also support this bill. Why? Is part of it a selfish 'gimme mine' impulse? Sure it is. I also supported CCW for cops at the state level back before I was a cop, and when I was a cop and Ohio's CCW bill was considered dead in the water. But I also supported (and support) CCW for all at the state level, just as I do at the national level. I got mine, but I sure as heck want you to have yours too.

This is a foot in the door. Suddenly we have a federal law stating that each state shall honor every other state's LEO carry privs. How long until a case can be pushed forward mandating full faith and credit for non-LEO CCW permits? Or, taking another tack, how long until someone makes a successful equal protection case?

The stumbling block of the libertarian/pro-2nd side is that we demand the perfect bill. "It needs to be exactly this way or I will NEVER support it! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!" Meanwhile, as we backstab and argue and attempt to tar and feather everyone who is not a True Believer, the antis/collectivists compromise their way forward on every issue. They wanted to ban all semi-auto rifles. Heck, they want to ban all guns. They got the 1994 Assault weapons ban and were happy about it. What did we get? 10 years of high-caps and low-caps and no muzzle devices, yadda yadda yadda. How did they get this? They compromised and took what they could get. We darned well ought to do the same.

(A sidenote: I will always compromise on offense. Like football, its a game of inches. Never compromise on defense. Like football, the Prevent Defense is stupid.)

Also? "most cops support Kerry'? Erm. Our labor unions tend to support him. Why? They're labor unions. Thats the way they lean. It has painfully little to do with the likes or dislikes of the membership, unless someone or something really stirs up the pot.

Pop Quiz: Who did the FOP back in 2000, and why?

Answer: It wasn't Gore, and the reason why was a revolt of the rank and file over the entrenched leadership.

I'm happy this passed. Its a foot in the door. Now, lets get the activist and lawyers ready to punch it wide open.

Mike

 

[Jeff White]

Lot's of cop-bashing going on here......Shootcraps, just what is your problem with the people that work for you? You said;

I'm not so sure this is a good thing either. Where has it been proven that this is a need of the LEO community?

Threats are a fact of life in this profession. Most of them are just talk, but two people did nine years for conspiracy to kill myself and another officer. I had to evacuate my family for a few days when it all went down. That wasn't an isolated instance either.

From what I've read, somewhere around 60-75% of leo's don't give a hoot about guns and see them only as a tool for work. Would these folks take advantage of this?

NO, I don't think that the folks who don't carry off duty now would take advantage of it. But in states where CCW is legal only a very small percent of those eligible take advantage of it. And of those that get their permits many seldom carry. So using your logic, maybe we should do away with CCW? Not enough people use it. I don't think you'd approve of that.

Would retired leo's take advantage of it? They're retired, maybe they don't want to do leo stuff anymore.

Again, some would and some wouldn't. How is carrying weapon doing leo stuff? Are CCW holders doing leo stuff?

And what about jurisdiction? A Cincinnati Policeman has no police powers outside of Cincinnati. What if he is carrying in Texas and starts acting like a cop and starts pushing citizens around?

Any why would he do that? Surely you don't think that possession of a firearm is what gives aan officer police powers? My police powers are given to me on a piece of paper that is an official commission. That piece of paper says that I am a sworn officer in a specific jurisdiction. Considering court entanglements and tons of paperwork and unfamiliarity with the laws in other jurisdictions, I rather doubt that anyone would want to push citizens around. Could you define pushing citizens around for me?

If they need protection across state lines or after their retirement party, maybe they should get in line and sign up for CCW's just like the rest of us. What's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. Here in Illinois, there is no such thing as CCW. There are many people working towards it, even police officers, but we're not there yet.

I agree that it's a strong pro-gun law. If GWB signs it, I think the LEAA should be seriously pushing for National CCW for all CCW holders. That's only fair.

LEAA has been pushing for national CCW since I became a member in 1994.

I'll have to look at the bill and see what the conditions are for them to carry. There also need to be some serious consequences if they get out of line. Some leo's are not angels and might take liberties with this law. Remember a few years back when the big group of New York City cops went to a big Wash DC hotel for a convention? Their behavior made the wildest Frat party you ever heard of sound like kindergarten parties in comparison. And did any of them get punished? Nope. Why not? Professional courtesy.

How many leo's are willing to arrest another leo who's disturbing the peace?

Well maybe we should deny CCWs to members of fraternal organizations, bowling teams and other groups who have been known to party wildly and may take liberties with the CCW laws? How do you know no one was punished in the incident you referred to? Often the administrative punishments available can be much more severe then the criminal punishments. Ever make a driving mistake and get in a traffic accident? Maybe you got a traffic ticket out of the deal. Small fine....Make the same mistake in a squad car, and you're liable to get 3-5 days off without pay in a lot of places.

This is a victory for everyones gun rights. It's the first step on the road to CCW reciprocity. Lets not let our personal feelings about police officers get in the way or progress.

Jeff

 

[stevelyn]

This bill has nothing to do with an officer playing cop outside his or her jurisdiction. It about self-defense pure and simple. Same as those supporting national right to carry for everyone. Most cops have better things to do in their off time than to start poaching in other jurisdictions especially with family members in the potential line of fire.
If they don't, their agency better send them in for another psych eval because they definitely have a screw rattling around. Not to mention that officers acting outside their jurisdictions are placing themselves and their agencies at grave liability risks. They are probably also violating department policies in doing so.
This bill obviously benefits me, but I hope above all else that first it was a clean bill with no AWB bagage hanging off it. Secondly, when your enemy is starting to break, you chase them down and put steel between their shoulder blades. The antis are begining to break. Now is the time to fix bayonets and use HR 218 to build support for national right to carry for all CHL holders. HR 218 took 12 years and a lot of dedication. National right to carry for CHLs isn't going to be any easier.
A good starting point for the arguement would be a look at the "shall issue" states that already have reciprocity laws in effect and the statistical results since enactment.

 

[Shield529]

As a Police Officer, I am glad that we are getting this so I can protect my family everywhere I travel.

That said I want to address a few things I have seen on this board.
1. Most officers do not "push citizens around", we are very oversighted and second guessed.
Yes I will be the first to admit Police ARE NOT PERFECT, we are citizens and humans just like you we have faults and bad days and even scumbags within our ranks, but most of us try to help others and feel bad when things go wrong.

2. If an officer has lost his sanity to the point he is acting cop like -- or taking unneeded action off-duty, better that he be exposed so he can get the mental help he needs.

3. I know about 50 Police officers personally and many more online. 5 I have spoke to oppose CCW. We are on your side.

4. We do not support Kerry for the love of all things.

5. Next time you encounter one of us try being nice instead off stand-offish or spouting laws to us.
If we are wrong talk to us like another human and not the Jack booted thugs so many people think we are.
Treating a person nicely may just help.

Remember we are just like you, we are citizens we have familys and BBQ on the weekends.

CCW nationwide for all.

Thanks for letting me spout.

 

[MikeT11]

I don't care for this bill as I see it as a way to create a divide between officers and the rest of the public and it does define a "special" class of citizens. On the other hand it could provide a foot in the door to get nation wide CCW so while it may seem bad now it could prove useful later.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I read this thread in a hurry, so I could be wrong, but is there anybody out there but me wondering where congress got the authority to over ride the states?

Remember States Rights?

If somebody claims that congress gets their clout from 2a then it exposes the whole double standard thing. This is absolutely in opposition to US v Cruickshank.

This bill will not hold up against an anti sueing. Scotus will never let this stand. Pick one....9a, 10a, 14a.

Dubya signs every bill infront of him, but this one is history. In advance. Clever ploy to make us think that he and congress is pro gun. What fools they think us to be.

If Dr. Paul voted for this it's a miracle.

 

[tyme]

It's unconstitutional and it's a bad idea.

Would all you H.R. 218 supporter support a bill recognizing the right of white people to have national ccw? That would be a good thing, right? It might lead to national ccw for everyone!

This is the same thing. There's some small chance it'll gather the momentum for real national ccw, but at the moment it's a selective recognition of rights that violates equal protection and states' rights. It worsens the already strained "us vs them" relationship between disgruntled citizens and police.

 

[Kharn]

Some things I noticed while reading the bill: (Click here and do a bill search for HR218)

1. Its split into two parts:
Cops (926B) and retired cops (926C). 926C can be found unconstitutional due to equal protection but 926B could still survive. Then the fight has to start all over again if retired cops want to be able to carry, but this time for all non-LEOs, not just retired LEOs.

2. They still have to obey state laws on signage for private persons or entities. Many may-issue states do not have signage laws (Maryland, NY, Kali?, etc), so this could get interesting.

3. The state governments can only directly control CCW on state property.

4. No MGs, silencers or DDs may be carried, but anything else is a go (SBR, SBS, fullsize long-gun, AOW, pistol, etc).

5. LEOs and retired LEOs must all pass the department qualifications to carry a firearm, with qualification occuring within the last year.

6. As it was passed by Unanimous Consent (meaning noone objected to it), I'm going to send Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes a "thank-you for seeing the light and allowing nationwide CCW for officers, now please expand that right towards all citizens"-letter just to ruffle their feathers. Too bad I cant draw a on the paper.

Kharn

 

[halvey]

Guys,
This is good. It's called incrementalism. The left has been doing it for 40 years. And it worked. Now it's our turn.

 

[K-Romulus]

This is good

To repeat (in my own words) what the other guy said, this is good. It's incrementalism. The Right has been pursuing incrementalism for 30 years, and it's worked.

Remember, the civil rights movement was started with an incrementalist strategy, and they won. Now firearms owners have continued the fight with this bill that is a MAJOR step towards recognizing the civil right to individual self defense separate and apart from government action.

This bill is HUGE!!! Its passage into law will mean that by LEO brother in Alaska can CCW when he visits my father in NYC, without the NYC government's "permission." Or when he visits me in MD, or when he does the tourist thing in DC. Think about that.

Also remember, FOPA protects people who are traveling to a different state. This interstate travel principle underlies 99% of the federal non-discrimination laws; no state can claim exemption from those. This CCW bill follows the same logic because it concerns LEO travel to another state. I don't see how it could be challenged. But I am sure many will try.

 

[whoami]

This bill has nothing to do with an officer playing cop outside his or her jurisdiction. It about self-defense pure and simple.

Same as those supporting national right to carry for everyone. Most cops have better things to do in their off time than to start poaching in other jurisdictions especially with family members in the potential line of fire.
If they don't, their agency better send them in for another psych eval because they definitely have a screw rattling around. Not to mention that officers acting outside their jurisdictions are placing themselves and their agencies at grave liability risks. They are probably also violating department policies in doing so.

That is not true, at least according to the LEAA....
http://www.leaa.org/218/talkingpoints.html

In a time where Homeland Security is paramount, H.R. 218/S.253 gives America countless additional trained and armed first responders at no additional cost to the taxpayers.

H.R. 218 and S. 253 give off-duty, as well as retired, police officers Right To Carry reciprocity throughout the nation in order to help prevent crime in our communities. All too often, current and retired officers come upon situations in which they can prevent violent crime and save lives. It is common sense they continue to have the tool of their trade available to serve and protect.

H.R. 218 and S. 253 will allow tens of thousands of additionally equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no cost to taxpayers.

I'm not saying self-defense is a major part of the legislation, but to flatly state that it is only about self defense is disingenious and a misrepresentation of the legislation and it's intent. I have to admit, it was kinda funny to catch you comment regarding 'acting outside their jurisdictions are placing themselves and their agencies at grave liability risks', and one of the talking points from the LEAA in support of the bill being 'continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction'

This bill obviously benefits me, but I hope above all else that first it was a clean bill with no AWB bagage hanging off it.

As do I, as do I......

Secondly, when your enemy is starting to break, you chase them down and put steel between their shoulder blades. The antis are begining to break. Now is the time to fix bayonets and use HR 218 to build support for national right to carry for all CHL holders. HR 218 took 12 years and a lot of dedication. National right to carry for CHLs isn't going to be any easier.

A good starting point for the arguement would be a look at the "shall issue" states that already have reciprocity laws in effect and the statistical results since enactment.

Use HR 218 to build support for national right to carry? For that, HR 218 is meaningless...unless one is completely blind to the way that the government perceives the social divide between civilian and public servant. It has been asked, time and again, on more boards than I can count, and still has not had an answer......what exemptions that have been provided to police officers has EVER been passed down to the citizens? Bring up HR218 as a stepping stone in a political arena, and there will be no end of clamoring over the points that have already been hashed out in this and other threads........HR218 is about COPS, COPS who are better trained, more trustworthy, and in more danger than citizens. With HR218, there will not be a need for citizens to carry as there will be police officers who will do so, and as we all know it is the job of the police to deal with these things. Even better, the LEAA has already stated (or so I have come across during other HR 218 threads) that it has no interest in assisting in the pursuit of national CCW reciprocity for citizens....so even the people who pushed forth HR 218 recognize there is no need for citizens to carry.

We didn't lose anything today, but we sure as hell didn't gain what some people want to believe we did. No, national CCW will not be easy, but to think that HR218 is a step in that direction is rather Pollyannish......

 

[Shootcraps]

I am not cop-bashing. My brother is a cop and I think it's great.

I have great respect for cops, and great contempt for cops who break the law. Especially when they think their badge will protect them from being arrested in another jurisdiction. Nobody has answered my question yet:

How many leo's are prepared to arrest another leo?

H.R. 218 and S. 253 give off-duty, as well as retired, police officers Right To Carry reciprocity throughout the nation in order to help prevent crime in our communities. All too often, current and retired officers come upon situations in which they can prevent violent crime and save lives. It is common sense they continue to have the tool of their trade available to serve and protect.

H.R. 218 and S. 253 will allow tens of thousands of additionally equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no cost to taxpayers.

This is not what HR218 is for. It's for their own personal protection. Not so they can be cops 24/7. How many leo's want to be on duty 24/7, everywhere they go (even on vacation) and not get paid for it? And what is the stress going to be like if they are in Condition Red 24/7?

I'm no legal expert, but I wonder if the states will be able to challenge this as part of their jurisdiction.

I still don't believe a necessity for this bill has been shown. They can get in line with me and apply for CCW. If it's a state that doesn't have shall-issue, and there are verified threats against them or their families then most states allow CCW for that.

 

[F4GIB]

Special deals are never extended to all the people. No LEO exception in history has led to a loosening of restrictions on ordinary folks. None, Never. This one won't either. If you think it will, you've been fooled again.

 

[lostone1413]

I just talked to Senator McCain and Senator Kyl office. I told them that it just makes a special class of person now. One thing I learned from both office is the bill is now coming up again were you can't sue the gun manufacture if the gun is used in a crime but this time it has the AWB as an amendmend. My money says the many supporters of the 2nd amendment have been sold out for the sake of the few. Watch and see.

 

[El Rojo]

Man, there sure is a lot of skepticism and general negative attitudes in our camp. Cops get to carry across state lines now. How does it hurt non-leo any? Sure they get to do something I don't get to do, big deal. Now lets start working on national CCW reciprocity and maybe I can carry out of the PRK and not have to stick my Glock in the trunk. We can either complain and gripe about this or write the LEAA and tell them to help us since we helped them. I guess it is easier to talk about police states and complain than try and be positive and try to make something good for everyone come out of this.

 

[Kharn]

Hopefully W will stick to his request for a clean S1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms, the bill I think lostone1413 is talking about).

El Rojo:
Yeah, I've noticed the same around here. African Americans didnt get all their rights recognized over night, it took years, we're probably going to have a fight of similar magnitude to get our rights. Its not going to be one magic bill that does it all (nationwide CCW, '86 ban eliminated, import ban lifted, etc etc), it'll still be baby steps for a long time to come.

Kharn

 

[lostone1413]

From CA. I see think they look at gun control different and allot of other things to compared to how we look at them in AZ. Why should someone retired be able to carry in say Illinois when people who live their can't? Want to bet this went through with the agreement to pass the AWB? It does nothing but make a special class of people. See if the AWB don't go through this time. Then a few will benefit at the expense of the majority of the 2nd amendment backers.

 

[Cabby]

Those who think this is a good thing just don't get it. There is now NO reason for law enforcement to support CCW by lowly citizens, let alone National CCW. We have lost allies in this fight, because now now that they've got theirs, why should they fight for us.

Question: Why don't cops fight for relaxing speed limits?
Answer: Speed limits don't apply to them. (Un-professional courtesy)

Question: Why won't cops fight for National CCW?
Answer: It provides them with nothing they don't already have.:banghead:

 

[greyhound]

How'd the Anti's let this one slip past them?

They usually are Ok with "guns only in the hands of trained professionals" (i.e. police and military).

Plus, like the John Kerry "we don't want to take your hunting or target rifles" types, its a good way to say you support the 2A.

 

[El Rojo]

Cabby your entire post is based on unsubstantiated claims and assumptions. Lets look at them.

There is now NO reason for law enforcement to support CCW by lowly citizens, let alone National CCW. We have lost allies in this fight, because now that they've got theirs, why should they fight for us.

That also means there is no reason for them to be in the NRA or any other group right? But wait, there are many law enforcement officers who are. Maybe, just maybe there are still many law enforcement officers out there who are not selfish and self-serving and they actually care about the Constitution and liberty and they will continue to fight for what is right for everyone? Nah, according to Cabby it is impossible. I mean he used that opinion poll and article to back up his claim. Oh wait he didn't. Lets look back at blackdragon's post at the front end of this thread.

I was fairly undecided on if this was a good thing or not, until I browsed the LEAA web site. Keep in mind these guys successfully lobbied 218 through.

Article titles: Time Running Out for the Clinton Gun and Magazine Ban
It was a bad law from the start...

Cops versus Gun Control
The simple truth in undeniable: rank-and-file cops oppose gun control.

Self-Defense and the Armed Citizen
...Find out how gun control is killing law-abiding citizens...

Hmmmm strange, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America is producing articles that deal with issues that LEOs are already immune from and actually talk about all of our rights? It must be a dirty trick because they don't have to care anymore.

Why don't cops fight for relaxing speed limits?

Again, I really liked the article you linked us to stating that most law enforcement are against relaxing speed limits because the laws don't apply to them. Oh wait, again you failed to provide any supporting evidence. Now this is just a thought, maybe law enforcement is against relaxing speed laws because they are tired of shoveling up brains off of the interstate and highways because people are going way too fast! Sure lets live in a libertarian world where everyone just does as they please right? We don't need any speed limits. Until a inexperienced teenage driver plows through a crosswalk full of children and you kid is dead. Don't bother coming back to me with how liberal I sound and how by my same reasoning we should ban all guns for the children. There is very little correlation between using a gun more or faster and causing accidents and we know that combining fast driving with other distractions increases accident rates. Just in case you don't believe me here are two articles supporting my position.
http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/defensive/driving.html. Well it seems driving fast is just one part of the more complex of inattention at the wheel.
http://www.dot.state.az.us/ROADS/traffic/speed.htm. Speed doesn't kill, but speed limits do help save lives.

Why won't cops fight for National CCW?

Again a right to the point article that summed up the law enforcement professionals disdain for armed americans. Oh, sorry, that is sarcasm again, you provided no evidence to back up your opinion.

http://www.txchia.org/artslat6.htm. A cop who wants national concealed carry reciprocity, not to be confused with the recently passed HR 218 for LEOs only. I am sure if we contact him now he will say, "Screw you guys, we got ours."

Just go look at the LEAA Website. These guys are on our side. As far as the big police union organizations, of course they aren't fighting for us, they are liberal police unions. The general consensus remains, rank and file cops are generally conservative and they like guns in the hands of citizens. This hysteria about how cops are now going to abandon us because they got theirs is ludicrous. I wish I could say the same about gun owners in regards to their opinions about California. The most support I get out of non-Californian's is "move". However, I won't make the mistake of labeling all of non-Californian's that way and I know there are people out there who believe in what is right and will stand against what is wrong even if it has no direct effect on their rights. According to so many of the hysterical around here, law enforcement is for some reason exempt from caring about anyone but themselves.