Federal Concealed Carry Permit

[agentw0]

Man that just chaps my ass. Everyone should have this right that the "magical LEOs" have.

Why hold it agains't LEO's

[General Geoff]

Why hold it agains't LEO's

Because LEOs hold it against private citizens, whenever they arrest us for victimless crimes such as carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Obviously unconstitutional provisions, yet they still enforce it despite their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

"Just following orders," right?

[agentw0]

Because LEOs hold it against private citizens, whenever they arrest us for victimless crimes such as carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. Obviously unconstitutional provisions, yet they still enforce it despite their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

"Just following orders," right?

Well a lot of things fall under Officer Discretion, But the law is the law, victimless or not? Just like Prostitution is Victimless, but it is illegal, same can be said for Gambling, and people that are for the leagalization of pot?

Just go get a permit and then carry concealed, then your leagal.

[General Geoff]

Just like Prostitution is Victimless, but it is illegal, same can be said for Gambling, and people that are for the leagalization of pot?

Prostitution should be legal.
Gambling should be legal.
Drugs should be legal.

You asked "why hold it against LEOs?" Well, I gave you a very good reason. Officers ARE NOT an elite, privileged class. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS. To grant them (agents of the state) privileges that normal citizens cannot have, is the very definition of tyranny.

Just go get a permit and then carry concealed, then your leagal.

Two points. 1. Requiring a permit means it's not a right, but a privilege. And privileges can be taken away just as easily as they are granted.
2. What about in New Jersey? They don't seem to think such a privilege is worth giving, even to the law abiding.

[ErSwnn]

I know I'm preaching to the choir but damnit, I think if I'm allowed to own a gun I should be allowed to carry that gun anywhere I want without any "permit" of any sort. I hate the idea of being "permitted" to use the 2A. What I would much rather be is qualified. By passing a test of proficency and knowledge of laws we should be qualified to carry.

[General Geoff]

ErSwnn, inalienable rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms) operate on the principle that an adult of sound mind needs no other qualifications to exercise said right (and can indeed bear the responsibility of using or misusing that right). The law operates on the assumption that folks are of sound mind unless proven otherwise, thus no testing or training is or should be required.

Is training a good idea? Absolutely. Knowledge and practice is power. Should it be required? Absolutely not.

[leeam]

Well a lot of things fall under Officer Discretion, But the law is the law, victimless or not? Just like Prostitution is Victimless, but it is illegal, same can be said for Gambling, and people that are for the leagalization of pot?

Just go get a permit and then carry concealed, then your leagal.

Could you please show me where in the constitution I can find, "A well regulated brothel, being necessary to the security of ones manhood, the right of the people to pay for sex, shall not be infringed"?

I realize officers need to make calls on their own, but as a jury is able to find people not guilty because of unconstitutional laws, officers should be able to do the same (I don't know if they're legally allowed to or not).

There's a lot of states that don't offer permits/licenses, or claim to, but never actually provide them. We shouldn't need them in the first place. ESPECIALLY in PA when we have "shall not be questioned" instead of "shall not be infringed" in the wording of our right to keep and bear arms in our state's constitution.

[General Geoff]

I realize officers need to make calls on their own, but as a jury is able to find people not guilty because of unconstitutional laws, officers should be able to do the same (I don't know if they're legally allowed to or not).

Sworn officers of the law are not only able to, but are in fact morally and duty-bound to refuse unconstitutional orders, such as arresting people under unconstitutional statutes.


In practice it comes down to what the officer believes in, personally. Most trust established case law for the purposes of determining what is and is not constitutional. I'd make a terrible LEO because I could never in good conscience arrest someone for simple drug possession, or carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, or underage (but over-18) drinking, or prostitution, or any other victimless crime.

[agentw0]

Prostitution should be legal.
Gambling should be legal.
Drugs should be legal.

You asked "why hold it against LEOs?" Well, I gave you a very good reason. Officers ARE NOT an elite, privileged class. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS. To grant them (agents of the state) privileges that normal citizens cannot have, is the very definition of tyranny.



Two points. 1. Requiring a permit means it's not a right, but a privilege. And privileges can be taken away just as easily as they are granted.
2. What about in New Jersey? They don't seem to think such a privilege is worth giving, even to the law abiding.

Well that's your opinion on those laws, write your congressmen, Officer's do not create the laws, but they are expected to enforce them and that is what they are paid to do.

I disagree with you. Officer's are held to a higher standard than the general public. Granted there are many here that have had negative encounters, but to say Officers should not be able to be granted a special privledge when relating to weapons is a little extreme. Officer's are much more of a target than your average citizen when they are off duty. I think it is a good thing that we are allowed to always ensure we are protected and can protect others while off duty.

If you want the privledges that come with the job, do the job?

[General Geoff]

Officer's do not create the laws, but they are expected to enforce them and that is what they are paid to do.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any statutes which conflict with it are null and void.

Granted there are many here that have had negative encounters, but to say Officers should not be able to be granted a special privledge when relating to weapons is a little extreme.

It is not extreme at all. Let's assume officers ARE more of a target than an average citizen. How does that justify denying that average citizen the right to protect themselves by disarming them?