equal protection under the law?

[Ray P]

When President Bush proposed, and Congress passed, laws to issue retired law enforcement officers (LEOs) a national concealed wepons permit, and to permit pilots to go armed in the cockpit, I cheered along with most.

Then a NJ ferry Captain won the right to carry in the execution of his duties (similar to the duties and responsibilities of airline pilots) under "equal protection".

That raised a flag. Federal, state and municipal retired LEOs are permited to carry concealed after a full career of placing themselves in harm's way to protect the nation's civilians.

1. How does retired Coast Guard fit in the picture; LEOs or military?

2. Why isn't that same LEO entitlement extended to retired military? Are they being denied "equal protection" under the law?

3. Why haven't the various military retiree groups addressed this?

 

[Pilgrim]

why retired military? What about former military (veterans)? If veterans, why not those trained with LTC's?

One group should NOT have prefernece over another.

Lets have true equal protection under the law.

 

[Ray P]

why retired military? What about former military (veterans)? If veterans, why not those trained with LTC's?

One group should NOT have preference over another.

Lets have true equal protection under the law.

I think only because, in my mind at least, there is a direct one-to-one correlation between retired LEO and retired military; the parallels are many.

The existing law does not extend to former (veteran) LEOs; so it would be more difficult to make the equal protection correlation to military veteran.

 

[Ray P]

I think I was a bit tired when I wrote the comment above.

Just about every session of Congress, someone sponsers a federal LTC reciprocity bill. It goes nowhere.

We DO have a federal law forcing states to recognize the right of retired LEOs to carry concealed. I want to see that extended to all lawful carriers. To get there, step-by-step expansion of the existing law may be the best starting point.

To me, the most obvious first arguement for an incremental expansion is military retirees.

 

[C-pher]

I agree, as it doesn't seem fair to most of us, I think that anyway that we can get there, then we should support.

Just like control laws that get sneeked in because of another control law...it could work to our favor.

Get LEO's approved, then Military, then LTC's... As another get's approval, it can pave the way for the next.

Maybe it's a pipe dream...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Get LEO's approved, then Military, then LTC's... As another get's approval, it can pave the way for the next.

Maybe it's a pipe dream...

One need only to look to history. Even prior to the federal law, retired NYC LEO's could get unrestricted permits in that city. This hardly "paved the way" for everyone else.

In fact, granting such priviliges to retired officers can remove them as otherwise powerful allies in the fight to civilian licenses. Just imagine how the "retired police" testimony would go if one of the ground rules of our system was "no special priviliges for off duty police."

Special priviliges are a problem, not a path to a solution.

 

[C-pher]

OK, so that makes sense... pipedream it is.

 

[Pilgrim]

Get LEO's approved, then Military, then LTC's... As another get's approval, it can pave the way for the next.

Maybe it's a pipe dream...

One need only to look to history. Even prior to the federal law, retired NYC LEO's could get unrestricted permits in that city. This hardly "paved the way" for everyone else.

In fact, granting such priviliges to retired officers can remove them as otherwise powerful allies in the fight to civilian licenses. Just imagine how the "retired police" testimony would go if one of the ground rules of our system was "no special priviliges for off duty police."

Special priviliges are a problem, not a path to a solution.

yup

 

[Len-2A Training]

It took >12 years (that I was aware of it) while the police unions pushed for CCW in all 50 states. I was amazed that it finally passed, as it went nowhere for years on end.

I never expect to see CCW licenses treated like DLs for the "unwashed masses". There is much too much mistrust and hatred for civilians being able to defend themselves in this country.

Even amongst LE, the MCOPA was DEAD SET AGAINST HR218, and they are still dragging their feet in implementation for retirees. There are chiefs that routinely refuse to issue "retired IDs", which would prevent a retiree from CCW under the law, etc.

Generally (and most especially in the Northeast) LE organizations don't even trust each other and they will never trust "common folks" enough to support a bill to arm the citizenry.

 

[mark056]

Len is quite correct with regard to NE LE organizations not trusting one another.

The military (except for the National Guard) is not really responsible for law enforcement functions, in fact under the Posse Commitatis 9sp?) Act it is prohibited. However, both the Commonwealth and the US Constitutions recognize the militia , one component of which is the unorganized militia consisting of all able bodied males ages 18 to 45 (I believe). In the ideal world, one could make a cogent argument, I suppose, that able bodied males aged 18 to 45 should be allowed to carry any firearm unhampered by licensing requirements.

The Coast Guard presents a unique situation from my perspective with regard to the new CCW law for retired LEOS. The USCG is a law enforcement organization, in part. It would be interesting to see how a court case might come out if someone were to challenge it.

There might be an argument for allowing some retired miiltary to carry without a permit, specifically in the United States Code, retired officers who hold REGULAR commissions have certain statutory responsibilities. I'd have to look at the specific areas of the USC that apply, but there may be something there, then again maybe not.

There were a few optimists that saw the national CCW law for retired LEOS as a step towards some kind of national reciprocity for all licensed to carry individuals. Personally, I ain't gonna hold my breath for that to come about.

Chicago is another place where the police are resisting efforts to allow the new law to take effect.

Mark

 

[rscalzo]

Carry Permits

Went we won the right to obtain Retired Carry Permits in NJ, it was only after a series of backroom deals with the politicians and a few givebacks.

They then did everything to make it difficult to maintain. Qualifications twice a year with only a state certified instructor using the state firearms standard as set down by the NJ AG's office. This is a minimum of 100 rounds per qual. mandating both day and reduced light levels. It isn't hard to maintain the qual levels but most don't bother.

The cost to maintain the permit runs about $250.00 per year aside from the renewal costs which I believe is $50.00 per year. They know most will not take the time to keep up the qualifications, which is pretty much the only way to maintain your qualification under HR218.

[shock]

 

[Ray P]

(snip) Generally (and most especially in the Northeast) LE organizations don't even trust each other and they will never trust "common folks" enough to support a bill to arm the citizenry.

Getting another bill passed (see Lynne's latest post) may be difficult. As a start, why not pursue a court remedy to alleviate harm caused by 18USC44? The harm being unequal protection under the law; the most obvious example being USCG retirees. (No, I am NOT retired USCG).