Can retired NYPD cop get non-res LTCF

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by policemedic

For many, many years the Philadelphia Police Department steadfastly refused to issue a LTCF to any active police officer, whether they worked for PPD or not. Hell, I think they still do.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by policemedic

For many, many years the Philadelphia Police Department steadfastly refused to issue a LTCF to any active police officer, whether they worked for PPD or not. Hell, I think they still do.

When was this? Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I was referring to the modern Shall Issue era (and the modern era of CCW reciprocity). Before PA had Shall Issue, neither LEO nor private citizen could reliably get a CCW.

As for whether the PPD still do this, I'd need a cite before I believed that.

[chrisjames_71]

Originally Posted by policemedic

Wrong.

For many, many years the Philadelphia Police Department steadfastly refused to issue a LTCF to any active police officer, whether they worked for PPD or not. Hell, I think they still do.

Their reasoning was cops don't need LTCFs to carry guns. This is true, but at the time only applied to PA.

Now, they were dead wrong and should never have refused any qualified person, but that was the way it was. Therefore, saying a LEO could always get a PA LTCF (not CCW, which is an act not an object) is not accurate, at least if you live in Philadelphia.

Neither would York County (under Hose)...

Originally Posted by dgg9

When was this? Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I was referring to the modern Shall Issue era (and the modern era of CCW reciprocity). Before PA had Shall Issue, neither LEO nor private citizen could reliably get a CCW.

As for whether the PPD still do this, I'd need a cite before I believed that.

Still can't get a "CCW" in PA as it doesn't exist. Its called a License To Carry a Firearm.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Why should an LEO's right to carry (outside of their jurisdiction or off duty) be classified differently than anyone's else's?
.

let me state unequivocally that all law-abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun concealed or open everywhere in the united states...without any permit or license.

however, given where we actually are today the answer to your question is:

police officers spend their entire working careers pursuing and arresting violent criminals on behalf of society. in so doing, they make a lot of very dangerous enemies (those violent criminals).

thus, individual police officers can easily become specific hunted targets of very violent criminals because of actions the police officer has taken on our behalf. while anyone can become the hunted target of a violent criminal, it is much more likely to happen to a police officer as most of us don't have much interaction with those people.

so, the way i look at it is this. while it is an abomination that our government disarms any of us, that is no reason to resent police officers being allowed to protect themselves from those who may hunt them (and do so becaue of actions the officer took on our behalf).

so, while i do understand the "2nd class citizens" argument against LEOSA in theory, i will focus on trying to get the same rights for the rest of us rather than taking those rights away from active or retired police officers.

also, retired LEOs no longer work for the government. so LEOSA means more guns being carried by citizens who are not government agents. so, it actually helps, rather than hurts, the balance of power between citizens and the government. you could actually view it as a step in the right direction...of course, we need more steps--but ya gotta start somewhere. repealing it would be a step backwards.

so, in a nutshell, i support LEOSA.

[policemedic]

Originally Posted by dgg9

When was this? Perhaps I should have been more specific, but I was referring to the modern Shall Issue era (and the modern era of CCW reciprocity). Before PA had Shall Issue, neither LEO nor private citizen could reliably get a CCW.

As for whether the PPD still do this, I'd need a cite before I believed that.

This was during the shall issue period, after Philly was forced to comply with state law. I'm sure if I call Gun Permits tomorrow, tell them I'm an active cop, and want a LTCF, they'll me I don't need one and to have a good day.

I know several active cops who wanted one prior to HR218 specifically for reciprocity and were turned away (not denied, they were not allowed to apply) by the good folks at the PPD Gun Permit Unit.

I've worked in the City for over sixteen years, and nothing PPD does surprises me.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

so, the way i look at it is this. while it is an abomination that our government disarms any of us, that is no reason to resent police officers being allowed to protect themselves from those who may hunt them (and do so becaue of actions the officer took on our behalf).

Firstly, who said I resented cops?

Please read my post history to learn my thoughts and feelings regarding cops.

I salute cops for doing a job I sure as heck don't want.

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

so, while i do understand the "2nd class citizens" argument against LEOSA in theory, i will focus on trying to get the same rights for the rest of us rather than taking those rights away from active or retired police officers.

I don't want to 'take rights away' from anyone.

Cops had the right to keep and bear arms, just like the rest of us, all along.

Look, please re-read my entire original post in this thread.

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

so, it actually helps, rather than hurts, the balance of power between citizens and the government. you could actually view it as a step in the right direction...of course, we need more steps--but ya gotta start somewhere. repealing it would be a step backwards.

No, I disagree.

The legislation does nothing but take away a right and replace it with a controlled 'privilege', an 'entitlement' meted out to only one small section of the population. It just does nothing else. There is no obvious effort to help restore the rights of all Americans cleverly hidden anywhere in this Act.

I can't see how anyone, in good conscience, can defend the LEOSA as 'good law'. Unless, of course, they feel keeping and bearing arms *should* be viewed as a privilege and an entitlement reserved only for cops.

I believe that I could successfully argue that this legislation does nothing more than stick a 'pacifier' in the mouths of cops (and retired cops) so they won't join any fights against 'gun control' legislation. If off duty cops, ex cops, all other citizens were all treated equally by the government (as they should be), then there would be a heck-of-a-lot more opponents to gun control.
.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by policemedic

This was during the shall issue period, after Philly was forced to comply with state law. I'm sure if I call Gun Permits tomorrow, tell them I'm an active cop, and want a LTCF, they'll me I don't need one and to have a good day.

Every rule has exceptions. Philly is just one part of PA and PA is just one state of the union. While there are pockets of abuse here and there, I know of no nationally consistent rule that says that LEOs can't get CCWs from their own state.

Whereas NO non-LEO gets HR218.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Firstly, who said I resented cops?

i didn't say you resented cops.

i thought you resented that they are allowed to carry in situations where you are not allowed to carry...that you resented that situation (created, as i think you understand, by the legislature), not cops themselves.

anyway, maybe i was even wrong about that, but just wanted to clear up what i was saying.

I don't want to 'take rights away' from anyone.

OK. i see what you are saying and concur. so let's change "rights" to "legality".

now, given that it just is plain and simply not going to happen anytime in the near future that we will all be able to legally carry in all 50 states (even though i agree that we actually do have the right to), the two choices are:

1. leave LEOSA in place and allow cops to legally carry in all 50 states...while the rest of us still cannot; or

2. do away with LEOSA so that cops also cannot legally carry in all 50 states.

those are the only two *realistic* options at this point.

which one would you choose if it were up to you?

i would choose number 1. it is not the cops' fault that the legislature passes unconstitutional laws and the courts allow them to stand.

The legislation does nothing but take away a right

this legislation does not take away a right...other legislation had already done that. this legislation is a response to that other previous legislation.

I can't see how anyone, in good conscience, can defend the LEOSA as 'good law'.

it isn't a "good law" in and of itself...but it is also not a bad law. it is a response to other, already existing, bad laws. it should not exist because those other laws should not exist, so there should be no need for LEOSA.

but, imho, LEOSA doesn't do any harm (again, it is not the law that infringes on our rights...those are other laws) while it does do some good.

I believe that I could successfully argue that this legislation does nothing more than stick a 'pacifier' in the mouths of cops (and retired cops) so they won't join any fights against 'gun control' legislation. If off duty cops, ex cops, all other citizens were all treated equally by the government (as they should be), then there would be a heck-of-a-lot more opponents to gun control.

well, you may have a point there. i will grant you that.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

[...]the two choices are:

1. leave LEOSA in place and allow cops to legally carry in all 50 states...while the rest of us still cannot; or

2. do away with LEOSA so that cops also cannot legally carry in all 50 states.

those are the only two *realistic* options at this point.

I would agree that it boils down to two *realistic* options, but I differ with regard to how they should be expressed:

1. Treat all American citizens as being equal (in the eyes of the government) - which supports the spirit of the Constitution

-or-

2. Maintain the creation of a "class system" by our government, separating those who are (or have been) employed in the field of civic law enforcement as having that of a 'higher', more 'privileged' status of American citizenship.
.