DC Must Let Ex Prison Guards CCW

[Ben]

Don't know how I feel about this. Good that they can protect themselves, but it's also the whole cop/ex-cop thing.  I would be much more enthused if the same groups that applaud this would support the same for other citizens. Or at the very least, not say, 'It's okay for me but not for thee".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/03/dc-must-let-ex-prison-guards-pack-heat-federal-court-rules.html?intcmp=hpbt4

[Perd Hapley]

Or at the very least, not say, 'It's okay for me but not for thee".

Yeah, but it's DC. That's the motto.

[brimic]

Seriously, screw them- I'm for equal protection under the law.
If ex-prison workers (or cops for that matter) get rights because of fear of criminals, than so should witnesses who testify in court, people who live in neighborhoods where crime happens, gas station attendants, liquor store owners, pizza deliverymen, (1) and anyone else who might be concerned about their safety.


(1) I just noticed that the people who I just pointed out have statistically more risky jobs than law enforcement.

[Perd Hapley]

Seriously, screw them- I'm for equal protection under the law.
If ex-prison workers (or cops for that matter) get rights because of fear of criminals, than so should witnesses who testify in court, people who live in neighborhoods where crime happens, gas station attendants, liquor store owners, pizza deliverymen, (1) and anyone else who might be concerned about their safety.


(1) I just noticed that the people who I just pointed out have statistically more risky jobs than law enforcement.

But they're not trained ninja operators, as all police are. Nor do they have the native honesty every police officer possesses. Duh.

[brimic]

But they're not trained ninja operators, as all police are. Nor do they have the native honesty every police officer possesses. Duh.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, I forgot another obvious truism. Because lowly civlians lack the years of intensive ninja training in ninja skills, it is more OK to disarm them.

[Fitz]

eff that.


They shouldn't have ANY rights that NORMAL citizens don't

It's kinda like the nationwide cop carry fuckery "We should support this, then the cops will help us get nationwide reciprocity!!"

lol

[Hawkmoon]

Don't know how I feel about this. Good that they can protect themselves, but it's also the whole cop/ex-cop thing.  I would be much more enthused if the same groups that applaud this would support the same for other citizens. Or at the very least, not say, 'It's okay for me but not for thee".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/03/dc-must-let-ex-prison-guards-pack-heat-federal-court-rules.html?intcmp=hpbt4

The LEOSA leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I remember when it was being debated in Congress, there were a LOT of police officers who showed up on all the "gun" forums, asking us gun owners to support passing the bill. They promised it was a "good first step" toward national carry, and that if we supported them in getting the LEOSA passed, they would help us get national reciprocity.

So we helped them get the LEOSA. And then they all disappeared and we've never heard a cricket chirp of support from any police officers or police officers organizations offering to follow up on their promise to help the rest of us get national carry in some form or other.

Beyond that, it strikes me that the court totally booted this one. The LEOSA has very specific definitions built into it as to who is qualified under the law. There is no determination to be made by any state agency; either their officers are qualified, or they aren't. One of the determining factors is that officers must have arrest power in order to qualify. And it turns out that various states treat corrections officers differently in this regard. Some have power of arrest, and some don't. Those who have power of arrest may qualify under the LEOSA -- if they meet the other criteria. Those who don't have power of arrest, don't qualify.

Simple.

Except that it appears the judge completely ignored the clear language of the law and didn't even address the very perinent question of whether or not corrections officers in DC have powers of arrest.

[lupinus]

The LEOSA leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I remember when it was being debated in Congress, there were a LOT of police officers who showed up on all the "gun" forums, asking us gun owners to support passing the bill. They promised it was a "good first step" toward national carry, and that if we supported them in getting the LEOSA passed, they would help us get national reciprocity.

So we helped them get the LEOSA. And then they all disappeared and we've never heard a cricket chirp of support from any police officers or police officers organizations offering to follow up on their promise to help the rest of us get national carry in some form or other.

Beyond that, it strikes me that the court totally booted this one. The LEOSA has very specific definitions built into it as to who is qualified under the law. There is no determination to be made by any state agency; either their officers are qualified, or they aren't. One of the determining factors is that officers must have arrest power in order to qualify. And it turns out that various states treat corrections officers differently in this regard. Some have power of arrest, and some don't. Those who have power of arrest may qualify under the LEOSA -- if they meet the other criteria. Those who don't have power of arrest, don't qualify.

Simple.

Except that it appears the judge completely ignored the clear language of the law and didn't even address the very perinent question of whether or not corrections officers in DC have powers of arrest.

Actually it's not been crickets.

Which is the problem, it's often stark opposition.

[KD5NRH]

Actually it's not been crickets.

Which is the problem, it's often stark opposition.

Which is why I say it's time to take militarization of the police all the way.  Make them sign out their gun at the start of the shift and sign it back in at the end.  Once they have encountered a situation that legitimately calls for deadly force, they can go back to the station and request some ammo.  Meals provided, to be eaten on the move, etc.

[Fitz]

Which is why I say it's time to take militarization of the police all the way.  Make them sign out their gun at the start of the shift and sign it back in at the end.  Once they have encountered a situation that legitimately calls for deadly force, they can go back to the station and request some ammo.  Meals provided, to be eaten on the move, etc.

LOL!

MRE's on patrol, no taking GOV's to civilian eating establishments. Hot chow 1-3 times a week served out of mermites!

[Perd Hapley]

LOL!

MRE's on patrol, no taking GOV's to civilian eating establishments. Hot chow 1-3 times a week served out of mermites!

I object. Why should cops be allowed to have mermites unless I can have them, too?! 

[KD5NRH]

MRE's on patrol, no taking GOV's to civilian eating establishments. Hot chow 1-3 times a week served out of mermites!

And let's eliminate that issue of "making it home to your family at the end of the shift."  Barracks living for months on end.

Want military vehicles to cruise around in?  Fine; pile in the back of a deuce and a half.

Patrol vehicle?


After a few weeks of morning PT they'll get around on it just fine.  And the MREs will eliminate the problem of having to rush out of the local cafe for a call.

See if they're done playing soldier after a couple years of that.