Federal Concealed Carry Permit

[agentw0]

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.

A lot of discretion has to do with circumstances and what I mean by that is who, what, when, where etc... and the demeanor of the person in question. A little bit of respect and compliance will go a long way with an Officer.

[ErSwnn]

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.

Point taken. My thoughts are that to do something with the potential severity of being armed one should need to show a capability, much like driving a car. But I do understand where your coming from and concede that consititutionally your probably correct.

[General Geoff]

My thoughts are that to do something with the potential severity of being armed one should need to show a capability, much like driving a car.

Being armed carries zero risk to bystanders, much in the same way that having a set of car keys in your pocket carries zero risk. It is only when you make the decision to use that weapon, that anyone is put in any risk at all. And generally speaking, if you're drawing your sidearm, it is ostensibly to protect yourself or another from grave bodily harm or death. A little risk in such an action is inevitable.


Would you say it's wrong to drive a car, unlicensed, even if it's to save your or someone else's life?

[agentw0]

Point taken. My thoughts are that to do something with the potential severity of being armed one should need to show a capability, much like driving a car. But I do understand where your coming from and concede that consititutionally your probably correct.

Well as you can read in LEOSA there are stipulations such as yearly qualifications and such... it's not a free pass to carry

[ErSwnn]

A lot of discretion has to do with circumstances and what I mean by that is who, what, when, where etc... and the demeanor of the person in question. A little bit of respect and compliance will go a long way with an Officer.

Man, ain't that the truth! I've walked or driven away from things that could have gone a whole lot different if I hadn't been respectful, compliant (not kissass..., compliant) and enough of the truth to satisfy the officer.

[ErSwnn]

Being armed carries zero risk to bystanders, much in the same way that having a set of car keys in your pocket carries zero risk. It is only when you make the decision to use that weapon, that anyone is put in any risk at all. And generally speaking, if you're drawing your sidearm, it is ostensibly to protect yourself or another from grave bodily harm or death. A little risk in such an action is inevitable.


Would you say it's wrong to drive a car, unlicensed, even if it's to save your or someone else's life?

Your correct in what you say...and I agree that under normal circumstances no weapon is dangerous. My concern is the cowboy types or those with short fuses, or those who THINK they know what their doing but don't have a clue. How do we curtail someone who will pull out a gun for a simple argument, thinking they are justified? Now, understand, I agree with you that what you see as the legality of your debate is in fact correct, I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent. Personally I'd like to see armed people display an ability to do so but consititutionally I know it doesn't hold water and accept that fact. It's a shame successive Congresses didn't. It would be nice if people took on the personal responsibility to learn how a weapon is to be used but since that isn't a reality and never will be, how do we deal with those who will be reckless or stupid?

Oh...and no, it would not be wrong to use a car in the way prescribed for saving lives.

[pyld]

Officer's are much more of a target than your average citizen when they are off duty.

How? Or in what greater degree than a private citizen with whom someone of bad motivation might have an axe to grind?

I think it is a good thing that we are allowed to always ensure we are protected and can protect others while off duty.

I (and others) happen to think that it's a good thing that citizens can do that, too.

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

Why take a paycut, and (in many places) be forced to enforce laws that are (in my opinion, anyway) unconstitutional simply to be able to exercise what ought to be a fundamental right?

[General Geoff]

My concern is the cowboy types or those with short fuses, or those who THINK they know what their doing but don't have a clue. How do we curtail someone who will pull out a gun for a simple argument, thinking they are justified?

These people are adults. THEY are responsible for what they do with their weapons. If some "cowboy type" draws a gun over a simple argument, that constitutes assault with a deadly weapon and he's liable to get shot by someone else. It's also entirely possible to just "let the man win" the argument, then later call the police on him, especially if there are other witnesses.

Do people get into fist fights over simple arguments often? Some. The people who instigate these fights, however, are ALREADY prone to being put in prison, or being killed in a fight. Bringing guns into the equation doesn't really change a whole lot.

It would be nice if people took on the personal responsibility to learn how a weapon is to be used but since that isn't a reality and never will be, how do we deal with those who will be reckless or stupid?

Can't fix stupid, whether or not they have guns. Suffice to say, basic gun handling should be a required subject in public (and private) schools. Education is no guarantee on anything, but it certainly helps. The remaining reckless idiots with guns are the price we must pay to have a free society.

[XD40coyote]

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.

Plenty of people have no doubt contacted their states lawmakers in states like NJ and MD, asking for shall-issue or unlisc open carry and etc, but states such as these are too full of voters who have been brainwashed to be anti gun, so they as a majority keep voting in bunches of anti gun lawmakers, and the few that are pro gun get lost in the forest full of antis.

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.

There are plenty of people out there who may have a stalker or a violent ex or even the neighborhood drug dealers that got snitched on by them, after them. Yet in states like MD and NJ, those people will not be able to get a carry lisc because they do not meet the "standards" needed. Esp in NJ. In MD they would have to fight tooth and nail to prove they have threats against them. Many people can't just move to a shall-issue state either, not everyone can get a quick easy job transfer or quickly get a new job just like the old one, but in another state. Some of us have roots that can't be pulled-own their own business and have built a great clientel up over many years. In MD such a business owner can get a permit, but only to make large cash deposits! And even with that, the MSP still turns down people for the permits.

If you want the privledges that come with the job, do the job?
What if you are handicapped, too old to join, or are simply not cut out for law enforcement work?

My responses are in red.

[chrisjames_71]

snip...Officer's are much more of a target than your average citizen when they are off duty.

Say what? How do you figure this? I do not agree with your opinion on this one. I am a cop and I sorta blend in with everyone else, I feel no more a target then anyone else.