Question for LEOs: Support conceal carry or not? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Question for LEOs: Support conceal carry or not?


mt920
08-30-2011, 06:43
This question is for law enforcement officers.

Given the noise across the country with "gun control" these days by politicians and civilians. I was wondering if you, those who lives are threatened by protecting us from the madness of society support "conceal carry" or not.

The LEOs that I know are split on this topic. One will argue that a normal civilian (professional) such as myself should be able to himself and his family. Others argue that with the concern of inexperienced shooters innocent by-standers could be at risk.

Again, "conceal carry" is a topic vigorously argued and heard by those who don't face to danger the most.

Therefore, LEOs, what are your thoughts surrounding "conceal carry". Should we have it or not?

bobcat21
08-30-2011, 07:37
I totally support it. It may, possibly, make my job a bit more complicated at times, but that is not a valid reason to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to self-protection.

On a more personal level, most of my family/friends are not LEO, and they deserve the same opportunity to protect themselves as I have.

ghstface38
08-30-2011, 07:53
Yes I support legally armed citizens. Yes I conceal carry off duty.

collim1
08-30-2011, 08:02
I carried with a CCW permit before starting in LE work. I have no problem with it. It is pretty common in my area, I stop alot of folks with CCW permits each weeks. It causes me no concern.

k9medic
08-30-2011, 08:03
I don't fear law abiding citizens. It's the ones who don't bother to get a permit that I have a problem with - they are not law abiding.

CCW is great. Too bad we can't expand it to all states like LEOSA.

merlynusn
08-30-2011, 08:40
I think concealed carry is good. I don't mind law abiding citizens owning and carrying guns.

But having a CCW does not make you a perfect angel. We actually just locked up two over the weekend for violent crimes.

Panzergrenadier1979
08-30-2011, 09:46
I completely support CCW. I carried concealed before I was LE. It's our constitutional right, as Americans, to do so.

DOrth
08-30-2011, 09:55
I don't fear law abiding citizens. It's the ones who don't bother to get a permit that I have a problem with - they are not law abiding.

CCW is great. Too bad we can't expand it to all states like LEOSA.

H.R. 822 would require states to recognize other states CHLs like they do D.L.'s

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

I wouldn't mind seeing every state passing Vermont style carry = no permit or license required for open or concealed carry for any adult who may legally purchase and possess handguns.

A friend, fellow church member, husband and father who was the first Police Officer ever murdered in the line of duty was shot and killed in December 2009 on a traffic stop by a licensed Pharmacist who had a CHL and was carrying a Glock 21 purchased by his brother who was a Trussville Police Officer. His murderer was found guilty and sentenced to death earlier this year.

I've stopped hundreds of CHL holders who've never given me a reason to feel the least bit apprehensive, but I direct all adult (including teenagers) to please keep their hands on the steering wheel, dash or back of the front head rest until I've concluded my traffic stop whether they tell me they have a CHL or not or tell me there are firearms in the car when asked.

I presume everyone I come into contact with over the age of 12 to be armed and watch their hands. If I suspect them of committing a crime or have a reasonable suspicion I pat them down to make sure (Terry stop).

Sam Spade
08-30-2011, 10:01
Back when it mattered, I taught CCW courses. So, yes, I support it and have done a bit to advance it.

OP, you say that cops in your area are "split". What area of the country is that, and what split are you seeing?

Snowman92D
08-30-2011, 11:41
I totally support it. It may, possibly, make my job a bit more complicated at times, but that is not a valid reason to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to self-protection.

On a more personal level, most of my family/friends are not LEO, and they deserve the same opportunity to protect themselves as I have.

:agree:

BULLRUNN
08-30-2011, 11:49
If your old enough to apply for a permit and can pass the background then I think EVERYONE should pack a gun..remember when SECONDS count us cops are MINUTES away...

Sippo
08-30-2011, 12:41
This question is for law enforcement officers.

Given the noise across the country with "gun control" these days by politicians and civilians. I was wondering if you, those who lives are threatened by protecting us from the madness of society support "conceal carry" or not.

The LEOs that I know are split on this topic. One will argue that a normal civilian (professional) such as myself should be able to himself and his family. Others argue that with the concern of inexperienced shooters innocent by-standers could be at risk.

Again, "conceal carry" is a topic vigorously argued and heard by those who don't face to danger the most.

Therefore, LEOs, what are your thoughts surrounding "conceal carry". Should we have it or not?

1. 2nd Amendment = the Law of the Land
2. LEO = Law Enforcement Officer

...Seems to me our job is to promote the law.

Ajon412
08-30-2011, 12:44
If your old enough to apply for a permit and can pass the background then I think EVERYONE should pack a gun..remember when SECONDS count us cops are MINUTES away...

This.....100%

Ajon412
08-30-2011, 13:05
H.R. 822 would require states to recognize other states CHLs like they do D.L.'s

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=189&issue=003

I wouldn't mind seeing every state passing Vermont style carry = no permit or license required for open or concealed carry for any adult who may legally purchase and possess handguns.

A friend, fellow church member, husband and father who was the first Police Officer ever murdered in the line of duty was shot and killed in December 2009 on a traffic stop by a licensed Pharmacist who had a CHL and was carrying a Glock 21 purchased by his brother who was a Trussville Police Officer. His murderer was found guilty and sentenced to death earlier this year.
I've stopped hundreds of CHL holders who've never given me a reason to feel the least bit apprehensive, but I direct all adult (including teenagers) to please keep their hands on the steering wheel, dash or back of the front head rest until I've concluded my traffic stop whether they tell me they have a CHL or not or tell me there are firearms in the car when asked.

I presume everyone I come into contact with over the age of 12 to be armed and watch their hands. If I suspect them of committing a crime or have a reasonable suspicion I pat them down to make sure (Terry stop).

I'm sorry for your loss, brother. Is this the incident:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/05/verdict_reached_in_trial_of_ma.html

Can you shed any addtional light on this?? The article mentions the defense argued and played the "mental illness" card for the BG.....

Glock411
08-30-2011, 13:38
I have known and met a lot of LEO's and I never met one who did not support some type of carry permit, When I lived in Orange county CA, The Capitan of our Local Police Dept. wrote me a recommendation letter for my conceled carry permit,

Agent6-3/8
08-30-2011, 13:51
Yes I support legally armed citizens. Yes I conceal carry off duty.


:agree:



I carried on a CCW before going into LE and I'm currently carrying on a CCW while I look for another department.

mrsurfboard
08-30-2011, 13:53
I support CCW as long as they are properly trained and have to qualify twice a year like I have to.

danielspdx
08-30-2011, 13:56
12+ years on the job and I support Constitutional carry. If someone is legal to own a gun, IMO, they should be able to carry. While I like the idea of training, the local requirements for training are laughable at best. If .gov offered minimal free training, I would support it, but like most things, I think licensing is about money, not safety.

trifecta
08-30-2011, 13:59
1. 2nd Amendment = the Law of the Land
2. LEO = Law Enforcement Officer

...Seems to me our job is to promote the law.

I'm clearly on Facebook too much as I found myself immediately looking for the "Like" button.



I wonder if there are regional differences in opinion- like a state or area with a rep for being gun unfriendly having officers that are also less inclined to support concealed carry rights.

mildot
08-30-2011, 14:04
:agree:

Nine Shooter
08-30-2011, 14:10
I support CCW and would hope everyone I have dealings with that has one is a responsible shooter and firearm owner. Usually the only times we have negative run-ins with CCW holders is seizing one after someone gets a DUII or some sort of pre-trial release condition. Both of these are fairly rare, which in my mind means that most CCW holders are responsible in other aspects of their lives as well.

ray9898
08-30-2011, 14:34
I had a CCW permit long before a badge. I have always supported and always will support law abiding citizens to have a means of protection.

boomhower
08-30-2011, 14:36
I am completely in agreement with lawful citizens being armed.

RVER
08-30-2011, 15:06
If your old enough to apply for a permit and can pass the background then I think EVERYONE should pack a gun..remember when SECONDS count us cops are MINUTES away...

10-4 that. It costs approximately $35,000.00 per year to keep a felon locked up in a state prison VS $4.50 (the price of 3 Corbon DPX's) for a citizen to put an end to said felon's criminal career. Forever. Just sayin... :whistling:

I certainly would support if a portion of my tax dollars were spent on background / psychological checks, training, and the arming of "volunteer" citizen crime watch groups.

msu_grad_121
08-30-2011, 15:57
I have no problem with CPL holders, and in fact if it were up to me, I'd get rid of most of the "pistol-free zones" in MI. The majority of them are laughable at best. The only negative I've seen is that a lot of CCW'ers I know are pushing for the OC thing all the sudden. Again, another can of worms I'm not gonna open.

mt920
08-30-2011, 16:08
I really thank you for the responses that were given at this point. I just wanted to hear from you, the men and women in blue who serve and protect people like me.

The LEO's that I was referrig to are in the Chicagoland area. They're all are not democrats, as I know many republicans that hate guns and support "gun control". So let's not turn this healthy thread into one-sided slam fest as some of the others threads on this forum.

I'm a big supporter of "conceal carry" and I anticipate Illinois to approve something in the next few years.

Again, thanks for participating in this thread. More importantly, thanks for serving and protecting us. Good job!!!

Landric
08-30-2011, 16:41
I had a permit before I was an LEO (for one year, from the time Virginia passed Shall Issue until the following summer when I was sworn in), and I maintain a "civilian" CHP to this day (though now I am in North Carolina). My wife just went to a CHP class last weekend.

Yes, I support it completely. However, answers on this board are going to be skewed, the cops here are all gun nuts.

Sharky7
08-30-2011, 16:53
I support it when it is done right. Thorough and intensive background check/investigation and REAL training.

I've had this argument a few times in Carry Issues where some people are against training - they think learning the basic rules of handgun safety is enough, but it's definitely not. If you are going to carry a firearm, you need to know how and when to use it. Practical law, case law, and scenario training using SIM rounds and then debriefing those scenarios afterwards is important.

captcurly
08-30-2011, 18:48
Retired now but I have always supported CCW for qualified citizens. I always carrried off duty wihen active. I have carried concealed since I retired (17 yrs.ago).

Misty02
08-30-2011, 19:28
12+ years on the job and I support Constitutional carry. If someone is legal to own a gun, IMO, they should be able to carry. While I like the idea of training, the local requirements for training are laughable at best. If .gov offered minimal free training, I would support it, but like most things, I think licensing is about money, not safety.

We could have, as part of the curriculum in high schools, driverís ed and firearms ed. :)

.

Agonizer
08-30-2011, 21:58
Not LEO, but I would like to comment.

The OP mentioned a lot of noise and calls for gun control. In reality the anti-gunners are fighting a loosing battle, and they know it. Forty nine states with some form of concealed or open carry. The pendulum is swinging back to non-infringement. Laws are being repealed or written in our favor quite frequently now. With more people carrying, it is becoming normalized in society.

We are on a winning trend.

Hack
08-30-2011, 22:01
We could have, as part of the curriculum in high schools, driverís ed and firearms ed. :)

.

Interesting idea.

scottydl
08-30-2011, 22:24
I support CCW as long as they are properly trained and have to qualify twice a year like I have to.

I support it when it is done right. Thorough and intensive background check/investigation and REAL training.

This and this.

If/when Illinois eventually comes around and joins the rest of the nation with citizen CCW, I just hope there's a good plan in place for certification and qualification. Of course, if the government's in charge then that probably won't be the case. :whistling:

As an LEO, I'd just like to know that citizens are proficient in gunhandling prior to giving them the green light to be packin' anywhere they go.

Misty02
08-31-2011, 05:34
Interesting idea.

The few officers we know are pro citizen carry. They’ve mentioned that there are a few in their department that feel differently, so I know they exist, I just haven’t met them (and I would prefer not to encounter one of them on the road). From what I hear, it seems a great majority is in favor. Safety is a concern not just for police officers, but for all of us out there.

As respect training and firearm safety, that is one area I miserably failed my children growing up because I just never thought of it. Even parents that are anti-gun may not oppose a class for children, as young as elementary, on the safety rules. It could be a safety class on various other risks children may face when parents are not around; one semester per school year dealing with a variety of subjects, firearms being one of them. Most of us are totally against drugs, we arm our children with the knowledge to recognize symptoms in friends and provide them with information to safely evade situations they may find themselves in where others may possess them, be selling them, etc. Why wouldn’t most be agreeable to having the safety rules and what to do if one is found to their children? They even have sex-ed for extremely young children, and that one I’m more opposed to.

I might not introduce actual handling of a loaded weapon until high school where they also learn to handle another potentially lethal tool, a vehicle.

ETA: I cannot take credit for the idea of teaching firearm handling in school, it’s not mine. I’ve been hearing about it for a long time from others, I just think it is a great idea.

.

eracer
08-31-2011, 05:49
We could have, as part of the curriculum in high schools, driver’s ed and firearms ed. :)

.I support mandatory training for ownership, including continuing education for CCW, but only if it is administered by the private sector, and only there are no pass/fail requirements (attendance would be the only mandatory requirement.)

There is no way we should go down the slippery slope of allowing the government to tell us we can't own a gun because we failed a firearms training class in school.

scottydl
08-31-2011, 07:29
There is no way we should go down the slippery slope of allowing the government to tell us we can't own a gun because we failed a firearms training class in school.

It wouldn't be a matter of legislating gun ownership, a completely different issue than concealed carry in public. Anyone can own a gun and keep it on their own private property for defense purposes... although in IL you still have to apply and be granted a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card by the State Police in order to legally possess the weapons. Restricted classes are felons, mentally ill, etc. There should certainly be higher standards for concealed carry, and most likely would be gov't mandated just like any law.

Misty02
08-31-2011, 07:40
I support mandatory training for ownership, including continuing education for CCW, but only if it is administered by the private sector, and only there are no pass/fail requirements (attendance would be the only mandatory requirement.)

There is no way we should go down the slippery slope of allowing the government to tell us we can't own a gun because we failed a firearms training class in school.

Failing driverís ed in school doesnít mean you canít go and get your license (outside the school setting) and drive a vehicle, and that one is a privilege not guarantee by the constitution. For kids that fail sex ed in school, does the government tell them they canít have sex because they failed the class? Why would anyone put more emphasis on passing or failing a class where firearms are concerned? Granted, if they fail the class they may need to take another elective to pass the school year, just as they would with anything else.

.

Kadetklapp
08-31-2011, 07:52
As a police officer I 110% support an armed citizenry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana. I take it very seriously.

I feel better doing my job knowing that there is an armed citizenry.

I have dealt with a few people in my profession that had permits and had firearms on them, and the reason I was dealing with them was because they were idiots. However, this does not change my mind about the public's general access to firearms. A few bad apples...

I will always support concealed carry.

dbcooper
08-31-2011, 08:21
I support CCW as long as they are properly trained and have to qualify twice a year like I have to.

I was at a local indoor range about 3 years ago, it was just me and a young woman there that morning and I was watching her shoot at index cards 15 yards out. She was all over the place with her shots. She walked back in the shop and came out with 2 boxes of reloads to keep shooting. She pulls a round out of the box, picks one of the first ones she was using up of the bench and holds them up side by side staring intently. She walks over and says " will these work?" She had been shooting hollow points and the reloads are harball. So I show her the 40 S&W on the head stamp and on her barrel and explain to her that the caliber is what matters, not the bullet. I ask her how long she has been shooting and her answer truely scared me. She had been on the local force for almost a year and was due to requalify the following week!
I spent the next hour working with her on the basics and had her keeping most of her shots on a shoot-n-c target at ten yards when we were done. She ended up patroling the area I live in and I run into her every once in a while.

scottydl
08-31-2011, 11:45
^^ An obvious lack of training at her department, which is sad to say still occurs in many smaller rural areas nationwide. Many part-time or reserve officers may not have ongoing firearms training opportunities available like the rest of us do.

danielspdx
08-31-2011, 13:00
I support mandatory training for ownership, including continuing education for CCW, but only if it is administered by the private sector, and only there are no pass/fail requirements (attendance would be the only mandatory requirement.)

There is no way we should go down the slippery slope of allowing the government to tell us we can't own a gun because we failed a firearms training class in school.

The only issue I see regarding private sector training is there should be some kind of standard, and if it's related to the legal possession/carrying of firearms, I think .gov would be involved. Furthermore, I don't think basic training in this scenario should cost the student anything, so again .gov would be involved. There would be no way a private company would foot the bill for something like this.

I would support an NRA (or maybe SAF) center that's approved and funded by .gov that would offer free training to anyone who can legally own a gun and wants to legally carry.

eracer
08-31-2011, 19:12
Failing driverís ed in school doesnít mean you canít go and get your license (outside the school setting) and drive a vehicle, and that one is a privilege not guarantee by the constitution. For kids that fail sex ed in school, does the government tell them they canít have sex because they failed the class? Why would anyone put more emphasis on passing or failing a class where firearms are concerned? Granted, if they fail the class they may need to take another elective to pass the school year, just as they would with anything else.

.
Point is that the government tells us we a can't get a license if we don't pass a test.

genecole
08-31-2011, 20:29
100% in support of concealed carry. I am pretty new, but the few people I have pulled over that had a CHL were the easiest to deal with.

My personal opinion is that if you can pass the background check to get a CHL and legally purchase the gun, you should be carrying it at all times.

old_pigpen
09-01-2011, 18:23
I got my pistol permit the day I turned 21 and have carried as much as possibly and legal since that day. State law here in Alabama actually requires reserve LEOs to have a pistol permit. I have also voluntarily tried to attend as much non LE training as I could get (which isn't much around here.)

This next part may not be popular, but its my opinion. Regarding mandatory training and education, the problem that I have is that keeping and bearing arms is a right in our US Constitution, and in my State Constitution as well. Having to attend mandatory training or pass a test does infringe on my rights and the rights of others, since failure to pass a test or attend training means no pistol permit and no legal carrying of a handgun And, I can not exercise my constitutional right to bear a firearm until I attend a class or pass a test.

I put the 2nd Amendment on an equal footing with all other amendments. For example, no training or testing is necessary to vote, assemble in public, attend church, speak my opinion, or write an article for a newspaper. If politicians tried to put into place testing or training requirements before you could exercise those rights, all H-E-Double Hockey Sticks would break loose. I've been told that testing or training is necessary because a handgun is a dangerous weapon. However, IMHO again, voting, assembling, speaking, et al, can be even more dangerous than carrying a gun!

I fully agree that there are consequences, however, for shouting fire in a crowded building just as if I went on a shooting spree in a crowded building. Rights = Responsibility. The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

For current and us former LEOs, firearms training and/or qualifications are part of the job and a "condition of employment." If you don't want to attend firearms training or qualify with a certain percentage, you don't have to do that job, or won't be doing the job For example, as a reserve deputy, I had to score 80% or better while the full time and part time deputies had to score 70% or better. I knew that going in. It was part of what I had to do in order to be a reserve deputy. If I didn't want to shoot 80% or better, or shoot at all, I wouldn't be a reserve deputy. I have seen full time deputies fail to qualify and a reserve deputy kicked out of the SO for failing to qualify.

However, if you as a LEO fail to qual or don't attend training, you don't lose your right to keep and bear arms along with your job.

My personal opinion is that if you can LEGALLY acquire a handgun, you should be able to carry it without a pistol permit. But, if you abuse your right to bear arms, society will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Sorry for the long post. RKBA has always been a subject that I am passionate about.

msu_grad_121
09-01-2011, 19:58
I fully agree that there are consequences, however, for shouting fire in a crowded building just as if I went on a shooting spree in a crowded building. Rights = Responsibility.

While I truly do see where you're going with this, I don't believe your argument holds water. Let me explain why before you flame me.

First of all, yelling "fire" in a crowded building isn't protected speech under the first amendment, just like the ability to carry a firearm concealed isn't guaranteed under the second amendment.

I would equate it very much to the way that drivers are licensed to operate motor vehicles. For instance, there's nothing that inhibits an average citizen from freely moving about the country at their leisure. However, if you intend to do so by driving a car, there are additional standards you must meet. If you don't meet the standards, you don't lose the right to move about the country, you merely lose the priveledge of doing so by operating a motor vehicle.

I feel the same way about carrying concealed. If you fail to meet the standards or to qualify, you don't lose the right to keep or bear arms, you lose the priveledge of bearing those arms in that specific manner. The two are not locked together.

Now, having said that, I do maintain a CPL, and well over 99% of the CPL holders I've dealt with have been good and decent people, so I see no reason to revoke or restrict their priveledges. At the same time, I see no reason that higher standards can't be adhered to in order or earn those priveledges.

danielspdx
09-01-2011, 20:32
While I truly do see where you're going with this, I don't believe your argument holds water. Let me explain why before you flame me.

First of all, yelling "fire" in a crowded building isn't protected speech under the first amendment, just like the ability to carry a firearm concealed isn't guaranteed under the second amendment.

I would equate it very much to the way that drivers are licensed to operate motor vehicles. For instance, there's nothing that inhibits an average citizen from freely moving about the country at their leisure. However, if you intend to do so by driving a car, there are additional standards you must meet. If you don't meet the standards, you don't lose the right to move about the country, you merely lose the priveledge of doing so by operating a motor vehicle.

I feel the same way about carrying concealed. If you fail to meet the standards or to qualify, you don't lose the right to keep or bear arms, you lose the priveledge of bearing those arms in that specific manner. The two are not locked together.

Now, having said that, I do maintain a CPL, and well over 99% of the CPL holders I've dealt with have been good and decent people, so I see no reason to revoke or restrict their priveledges. At the same time, I see no reason that higher standards can't be adhered to in order or earn those priveledges.

I couldn't disagree more, and I think your arguments don't hold water.

The only thing I think I agree with you about is that even Constitutional rights do have limits.

I believe to "keep and bear" arms means that people can possess firearms, concealed or not. Just as the Constitution doesn't specifically grant one the right to carry concealed, it also doesn't mandate open carry or otherwise prohibit concealed carry. I personally don't feel it's right to separate the right to bear arms with the (modern day) privilege to carry concealed. If someone isn't upstanding enough to carry concealed, why can they even own a gun? Tiered rights? I don't think so. Would I like everyone to train as much as I do? Of course. Do I think that should be mandated? No.

People often compare vehicles to firearms and the licensing thereof, and I find it a fallacious comparison at best. Driving is not a Constitutionally protected right. Firearms ownership IS a protected right. The government, through the imposition of taxes, builds, maintains and "owns" the roads. The government can regulate the use of their roads as they see fit. While roads are "public rights of way" the use of the roads by vehicles is legally regulated. If one doesn't have a license or loses the privilege, one can often use public transportation, walk, ride a bike, etc... There is no such similarities with possessing a firearm.

I fall back on what constitutes a right being "infringed." Setting arduously tough purchasing and training requirements, to me, is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Requiring a FREE basic course, to me, isn't infringing on that right.

PinkoCommie
09-01-2011, 20:41
http://theaxemen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ayecarumbaoj3.jpg

Please, make it stop!
:crying:

taco101
09-01-2011, 20:58
100% support concealed carry. I would also support training requirements, paid by uncle sugar. Just like public drivers ed.

msu_grad_121
09-01-2011, 23:16
I couldn't disagree more, and I think your arguments don't hold water.

The only thing I think I agree with you about is that even Constitutional rights do have limits.

I believe to "keep and bear" arms means that people can possess firearms, concealed or not. Just as the Constitution doesn't specifically grant one the right to carry concealed, it also doesn't mandate open carry or otherwise prohibit concealed carry. I personally don't feel it's right to separate the right to bear arms with the (modern day) privilege to carry concealed. If someone isn't upstanding enough to carry concealed, why can they even own a gun? Tiered rights? I don't think so. Would I like everyone to train as much as I do? Of course. Do I think that should be mandated? No.

People often compare vehicles to firearms and the licensing thereof, and I find it a fallacious comparison at best. Driving is not a Constitutionally protected right. Firearms ownership IS a protected right. The government, through the imposition of taxes, builds, maintains and "owns" the roads. The government can regulate the use of their roads as they see fit. While roads are "public rights of way" the use of the roads by vehicles is legally regulated. If one doesn't have a license or loses the privilege, one can often use public transportation, walk, ride a bike, etc... There is no such similarities with possessing a firearm.

I fall back on what constitutes a right being "infringed." Setting arduously tough purchasing and training requirements, to me, is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Requiring a FREE basic course, to me, isn't infringing on that right.

I fear this is heading down a road that will do no one any good, and send the thread to a place no one wants it to go. I'll be happy to debate my views if you'd like, feel free to PM if you want. I am NOT challenging your views on the subject, merely nipping something potentially ugly in the bud.

GPalmer
09-01-2011, 23:27
NOT A LEO but I did want to chip in here and mention to the OP that this is probably a non representative sample of the feelings of Law Enforcement as a whole. Two reasons:
1) This is a gun board, so the folks who post here are firearms enthusiasts. We tend to get folks who know it's not the firearm which is evil, it's the user. Folks who think the firearm is evil won't be here.
2) The folks here tend to be rank and file and it seems there's a shift toward anti as you work your way up the ladder.

ashtxsniper
09-02-2011, 00:23
I support legal CC 100%.

S. Kelly
09-03-2011, 23:10
Yes, 100%.

OmniscientX
09-03-2011, 23:38
I totally support it. It may, possibly, make my job a bit more complicated at times, but that is not a valid reason to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to self-protection.

On a more personal level, most of my family/friends are not LEO, and they deserve the same opportunity to protect themselves as I have.

I carried with a CCW permit before starting in LE work. I have no problem with it. It is pretty common in my area, I stop alot of folks with CCW permits each weeks. It causes me no concern.

+1 Good stuff.

MeefZah
09-04-2011, 11:05
I support it; I encourage those licensed to carry to actually carry (by gently teasing them when I find out they have a CHL but are not carrying); and support the process by having a CHL of my own even though I obviously don't need one.

Now open carry? That's another story. :whistling:

Islander-11
09-05-2011, 18:42
I don't fear law abiding citizens. It's the ones who don't bother to get a permit that I have a problem with - they are not law abiding.

CCW is great. Too bad we can't expand it to all states like LEOSA.

Sums it right up for me.

NEOH212
09-06-2011, 00:20
12+ years on the job and I support Constitutional carry. If someone is legal to own a gun, IMO, they should be able to carry. While I like the idea of training, the local requirements for training are laughable at best. If .gov offered minimal free training, I would support it, but like most things, I think licensing is about money, not safety.

This.

+1 :thumbsup:

lawman800
09-07-2011, 00:37
Yes, I do support it fully. But living in SoCal, the people that can issue the CCW license (Chief or Sheriff), by and large will not issue. I don't know of any cities or counties other than San Bernardino County Sheriff that regularly issue CCW permits and since it's a county jurisdiction, you have to live in the unincorporated areas of the county to qualify.

GrandPaGuns
09-07-2011, 02:52
I fought in a war and I worked in a major city in the midwest for thirty years to defend my rights and yours. Wearing a badge or carrying an M16 in a jungle does not give me the right to decide who can carry and who can not.

lawman800
09-07-2011, 08:44
Wearing a badge or carrying an M16 in a jungle does not give me the right to decide who can carry and who can not.

Nope, to mess with people's lives in my state, you need to get a lobotomy and convince 50.1% of the active voters to choose you over the other ballot monkeys.:crying:

alwaysshootin
09-07-2011, 09:15
I couldn't disagree more, and I think your arguments don't hold water.

The only thing I think I agree with you about is that even Constitutional rights do have limits.

I believe to "keep and bear" arms means that people can possess firearms, concealed or not. Just as the Constitution doesn't specifically grant one the right to carry concealed, it also doesn't mandate open carry or otherwise prohibit concealed carry. I personally don't feel it's right to separate the right to bear arms with the (modern day) privilege to carry concealed. If someone isn't upstanding enough to carry concealed, why can they even own a gun? Tiered rights? I don't think so. Would I like everyone to train as much as I do? Of course. Do I think that should be mandated? No.

People often compare vehicles to firearms and the licensing thereof, and I find it a fallacious comparison at best. Driving is not a Constitutionally protected right. Firearms ownership IS a protected right. The government, through the imposition of taxes, builds, maintains and "owns" the roads. The government can regulate the use of their roads as they see fit. While roads are "public rights of way" the use of the roads by vehicles is legally regulated. If one doesn't have a license or loses the privilege, one can often use public transportation, walk, ride a bike, etc... There is no such similarities with possessing a firearm.

I fall back on what constitutes a right being "infringed." Setting arduously tough purchasing and training requirements, to me, is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Requiring a FREE basic course, to me, isn't infringing on that right.

Could not agree more on this posting! Great job!

To all of the LEO who back our constitutional right, thank you very much for standing up for which you swore to uphold.

and to mrs urfboard, you, should probably be made to qualify monthly!:upeyes: :upeyes:

volsbear
09-07-2011, 10:45
I really thank you for the responses that were given at this point. I just wanted to hear from you, the men and women in blue who serve and protect people like me.

The LEO's that I was referrig to are in the Chicagoland area. They're all are not democrats, as I know many republicans that hate guns and support "gun control". So let's not turn this healthy thread into one-sided slam fest as some of the others threads on this forum.

I'm a big supporter of "conceal carry" and I anticipate Illinois to approve something in the next few years.

Again, thanks for participating in this thread. More importantly, thanks for serving and protecting us. Good job!!!

I am a LEO of sorts in the Chicagoland area (probation) and interact with many police officers, judges, prosecutors, etc. The OP is correct in my experience - you see a lot of police and prosecutors all over the page on this issue. Some favor it, some oppose it, while others are strictly on the fence. In my department, we're pretty well split. Most of our judges are pro-2A as far as I can recall, however it's worth noting that most are Republicans. Unfortunately, my liberal department director doesn't like guns nor does his mockery of a republican boss who is our chief judge.

In Illinois, probation officers are peace officers by statute and exempt from the UUW laws "with the consent of the chief judge." So yeah... there you go. Nothing here works for me and my family. Not the politics or the politicians.

lawman800
09-07-2011, 11:36
What's worse? Being a probation officer in illinois or a police officer in socal?

I'll let you stew on that one for a while.

Peace Frog
09-07-2011, 12:10
http://mycoffeelounge.net/pixup/27890-6536.jpg

Peace Frog
09-07-2011, 12:14
Yes, I do support it fully. But living in SoCal, the people that can issue the CCW license (Chief or Sheriff), by and large will not issue. I don't know of any cities or counties other than San Bernardino County Sheriff that regularly issue CCW permits and since it's a county jurisdiction, you have to live in the unincorporated areas of the county to qualify.

What if somebody gets a P.O. Box in said county...does that qualify them for a permit in San Bernardino? :dunno:

volsbear
09-07-2011, 12:57
What's worse? Being a probation officer in illinois or a police officer in socal?

I'll let you stew on that one for a while.

I'd definitely rather work here - no doubt about it.

lawman800
09-07-2011, 16:19
What if somebody gets a P.O. Box in said county...does that qualify them for a permit in San Bernardino? :dunno:

You need to have an actual residence. They will send people out to do checks to make sure you really live there.:crying:

Falsifying an app is punishable under penalty of perjury!:dunno:

I'd definitely rather work here - no doubt about it.

See... That's what I thought.:whistling:

nikerret
09-07-2011, 18:03
I fully support an armed society. Why not? The bad guys have 'em.