Federal Concealed Carry Permit

[Bruce]

Query ... you feel the Special Right afforded you is okay ... why are Vets being stripped of ALL 2 - A Rights for PTSD upon return, when for LEO's it's a Work Comp issue with Rights remaining intact as far as I know ? (please correct me if my info is wrong)

I realize this was directed at a specific post (not mine), but something caught my eye here.

The way our country is set up - the Constitution ensures that there exists only one "class" (or "caste" or "level" or "whatever") of citizen. From the President, to individual Senators and Congressmen, to all the Judges, to the cops (including retired feds), to auto mechanics, to telephone operators, to janitors and the burger slingers and french fry makers - we *all* have the same exact Rights; and those Rights are all protected in the exact same way.

Over the past couple hundred years, laws have been passed that violate these Rights. Quite a number of these laws, seemingly by intentional design, remove our 'protected' Rights then dole them out as "privileges" to a select few. The most frightening part of that is - people let the law-makers get away with this when we don't have to.

It can get kind of fuzzy when discussing citizens who are employed by "the government"; because, you see, cops (for example) are employees of the government - so, when they are 'on duty', while they might be "citizens", their employment technically makes them "the government".

The government does not have any "Rights"; therefore, employees of the government, after a fashion, in so far as they are representing and acting in an official capacity on behalf of the government, do not enjoy any Rights as a 'government' employee/representative - until their governmental duties and actions are put aside and they are no longer functioning as a direct representative of our government - only then can they be considered "citizens" again, who, of course, share the same Rights as everyone else. It's very complicated and difficult to explain (and I don't feel I am explaining it well at all) - and most in the government (especially some cops) like that it is complicated and difficult to explain.

The government only has powers and authority as are *granted* to them (persons who constitute "the government" while acting in "official" capacity) by 'the people' (us - the individual citizens that, collectively, they work for). The Civil Rights of citizens, on the other hand, were endowed to us by our Creator by virtue of our being 'created' - the government did not 'give' us our Rights, yet they get their power and authority from us. The government, however, is (according to the Constitution) supposed to protect our Rights.

Very few of the powers and authority that the government has are "protected" by the Constitution - most of their powers and authority (the powers and authority we gave them that are not listed in the Constitution) can all be easily taken away by us (collectively), the constituents of whatever municipality those people work for - usually by a simple majority vote among a municipality (say a Town Council, or a State congress, or the Federal congress) or even from a simple order from a higher department such as our municipal representative (say a Mayor, or a Governor, or the President).

I explain all of this because I've seen more than a few posts throughout the forum where people seem a bit confused between the Rights of citizens and the powers/authority of those acting on behalf of the government (such as cops, for example). It isn't surprising as those lines are easily confused - sometimes it seems that some some certain folks like to intentionally blur those lines; which leads to such silly ideas such as that government employees (like cops, for example) get "special Rights" that us mere "citizens" don't get.

When you have a terrifically *bad* law, like the LEOSA, those lines between a government employee's governmental 'authority and powers' and a private citizen's 'Civil Rights' get even more blurred and difficult to explain.

You know A - 2, if this was Barney Fife days, probably none of this would even be close to a topic, but most of us feel in today's world that our Rights are being subverted by an ever growing Elitist Ruling Class, and that Ruling Class utilizes Unfair and Un-Constitutional Laws/Rulings to further subjugate us and Law Enforcement does the dirty work for them enthusiastically ... pretty close to right on ? ?

You said it! Right on!

People are finally starting to become aware of the fact that there are those who (very obviously) want to see our egalitarian society broken up into "classes".

They separate us by economic status, by profession, by skin color - why, they want to see us broken down into the smallest "groups" possible - then they (again, obviously, to anyone who cares to look) try to pit us against each other. All the while, they help to strip citizens of their Rights (usually by telling us that a Right is a "collective" Right - there is no such animal as a "collective" Right) then turn around and dole out those Rights as if they were suddenly a "privilege" - and then, they afford those Rights-become-privileges only to certain "classes" of citizen (the classes they told us that we belong to).

The worst offenders in this horrific atrocity are those who try to separate America into the "political" (or "government") "class" and... well, all the rest of us slobs. It has always been sickening to see people mindlessly accept that a government representative/official is of a "better class" of society than everyone else. It makes me glad when I see people "waking up" to what's been going on.
.

[falcn]

I explain all of this because I've seen more than a few posts throughout the forum where people seem a bit confused between the Rights of citizens and the powers/authority of those acting on behalf of the government (such as cops, for example). It isn't surprising as those lines are easily confused - sometimes it seems that some some certain folks like to intentionally blur those lines; which leads to such silly ideas such as that government employees (like cops, for example) get "special Rights" that us mere "citizens" don't get.

When you have a terrifically *bad* law, like the LEOSA, those lines between a government employee's governmental 'authority and powers' and a private citizen's 'Civil Rights' get even more blurred and difficult to explain.

When I made that comparison - I was talking about LEOs not being in LEO mode. This law applies to them when they are OFF DUTY - therefor in their roles as regular citizens, and not when acting as the Gov't.

Thus to me they are being granted rights (that we all HAVE, but are denied) that we as regular citizens are not allowed to exercise currently.

[Bruce]

When I made that comparison - I was talking about LEOs not being in LEO mode. This law applies to them when they are OFF DUTY - therefor in their roles as regular citizens, and not when acting as the Gov't.

Thus to me they are being granted rights (that we all HAVE, but are denied) that we as regular citizens are not allowed to exercise currently.

Actually, the LEOSA appears to be predicated on the basis of guaranteeing that 'cops' (and retired 'cops') may carry a firearm in those States and municipalities that require citizens to obtain a permit or license to exercise the "privilege" of carrying a firearm - as this is regulated differently in each State (and in certain municipalities). Some States actually do respect a citizens Right to Keep and Bear - such as Vermont and Alaska, which do not take away your Right and turn it into a "privilege" (one you must be "licensed" to use or get "permission" to do).

Only those States/municipalities that (obviously) do *not* recognize the Right of it's citizens to Keep and Bear Arms would *require* licensing (or "permits"), and it is those restrictive carry laws (meaning: where they require a license/permit) in those States and municipalities in particular, that the LEOSA was created / is intended to "override".

Did you see this paragraph in the post you cited:

Over the past couple hundred years, laws have been passed that violate these Rights. Quite a number of these laws, seemingly by intentional design, remove our 'protected' Rights then dole them out as "privileges" to a select few. The most frightening part of that is - people let the law-makers get away with this when we don't have to.

.

[falcn]

Actually, the LEOSA appears to be predicated on the basis of guaranteeing that 'cops' (and retired 'cops') may carry a firearm in those States and municipalities that require citizens to obtain a permit or license to exercise the "privilege" of carrying a firearm - as this is regulated differently in each State (and in certain municipalities). Some States actually do respect a citizens Right to Keep and Bear - such as Vermont and Alaska, which do not take away your Right and turn it into a "privilege" (one you must be "licensed" to use or get "permission" to do).

Only those States/municipalities that (obviously) do *not* recognize the Right of it's citizens to Keep and Bear Arms would *require* licensing (or "permits"), and it is those restrictive carry laws (meaning: where they require a license/permit) in those States and municipalities in particular, that the LEOSA was created / is intended to "override".

Did you see this paragraph in the post you cited:


.

Yep saw it. We're saying the same thing. You just expressed it better than I was able.

[Mosinshooter762]

Then we keep going back till they get tired of us. By the way can you provide a link to this decision I like a copy. As my taxes and your's pay for that protection

I'm sympathetic to your idea. Unfortunately, it will be called a 'frivolous' lawsuit, and most likely would never get before a jury.

[Mosinshooter762]

Enforcing immoral laws is immoral. I realize that leaves cops between a rock and a hard place, but that's the way it is.

Gun laws are not only immoral, though--they're unconstitutional. Enforcing an unconstitutional law is a crime. I realize that the courts will tell you they are constitutional, and your superiors will arrest you if you don't enforce them, but that's the way it is.

Kuddos!!!!! Although, I must ask, is a superior arresting a cop for not enforcing, lets say, a j-walking ordinance a real threat?

[dsnover]

I've said it before (ad nauseum) and I'll say it (yet) again:

The LEOSA is bad law - very, *very* bad law.

My first instinct is to believe that the 'government' passed this act to 'pacify' (especially retired) cops - to keep them from fighting along side all the rest of us 'mere peons' for our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Whether intentional or not - this law separates citizens of this country into two distinct classes: Cops and everyone the heck else; and it elevates cops to the status of "Super Citizen".

I don't care if you are a Lion Tamer, Railroad Conductor, School Marm or 'whatever' - no "job" should enable any one citizen to access more Constitutional Rights than any other citizen.

If you bother to look into my posting history, you'll find that I have no animosity towards cops whatsoever. On the contrary, I deeply appreciate that those men and women are willing to do such a nasty, dirty and dangerous job that *I* certainly do not want.

However, I will not accept the idea that cops deserve more/better Constitutionally Protected Rights than any other citizen. Laws such as these will only lead to resentment - to the belief in the 'superiority' of one 'class' of citizen over another (which is patently unAmerican).
.

(I bolded the stuff I'm commenting on)

Bingo. We should ALL be equal under the law and the Constitution. There should not be a 'some are more equal than others'.

[Bruce]

Bingo. We should ALL be equal under the law and the Constitution. There should not be a 'some are more equal than others'.

Glad to see yet even more people on the same page.

But, it isn't that we 'should' be equal, we already are all "equal" (with respect to Constitutionally protected Rights); the problem is that too many legislators - and altogether too many citizens, unfortunately - seem to have forgotten this.

They need to be reminded.

People need to become more aware of laws like the LEOSA - and why such laws need to be *repealed*.

Lots of stupid laws need to be repealed - but ones like this - ones that separate citizens into different "classes" (especially with respect to Constitutional Rights) - really need to go.
.

[Majikman]

Hey Bruce -

I don't know that it's bad to allow LEO's to continue to retain CCW authority as I've seen situations where I felt that if only someone had a CCW with them they might have been able to stop a tragedy from occurring.

I agree with you that it might be discriminatory to the average citizen but that's something that "the people" need to change through their vote as citizens.

I am fully supportive of CCW for all "responsible" citizens countrywide, across all juristictions.

Simply consider that it may be a step-by-step process where in CCW across state lines will firstly be available to retired LEOs followed by additional legal actions to provide it to all citizens who are determined to be responsible enough to have this right.

Don't blame the individuals who have obtained the right. Blame the law makers that create the laws that restrict those rights. And keep in mind that the people can change the laws through their vote if they will only stand up to exercise their voting rights.



______________________________

I couldnt agree with you more. Congress has given LEOs entirely too much in recent years and with the way LEOs are killing people while theyre still active i dont think they should be any more pervy to special CCW laws than the rest of us. Hell i been carrying for 20 years now without incident but i know personally LEOs that have violated rules of carrying while off duty like being completely smashed DUI and toting their favorite firearm. They should not enjoy any special privilidge. If they arent doing their duty they are just like everyone else.

[Majikman]

I couldnt agree with you more. Congress has given LEOs entirely too much in recent years and with the way LEOs are killing people while theyre still active i dont think they should be any more pervy to special CCW laws than the rest of us. Hell i been carrying for 20 years now without incident but i know personally LEOs that have violated rules of carrying while off duty like being completely smashed DUI and toting their favorite firearm. They should not enjoy any special privilidge. If they arent doing their duty they are just like everyone else.
And btw there is a way to get a federal permit to carry but you have to have friends in the FLEO community. I have seen them with my own eyes but have yet to be able to get my hands on one. They do not make them easy to get and all Feds will tell you they dont exist but they can be got.