Reciprocity gets out of committee - not sure if dupe

They love the Bloomberg style guide approved jargon of "hidden" guns. Because Mr.thuggymcthugface from the dregs of Dot on his 3rd unlawful possession of the year is really less dangerous than a visiting dentist with a Utah ccw license.
 
Im happy the Chief of Police in my town did'nt sign. Its a shame seeing so many redcoats from MA sign that trash. Pathetic.
 
The difference being it wasnt the fed gov that mandated that the states recognize each others DL's......that was done voluntarily by the individual states..........much like its currently being done by various states choosing to recognize certain other states CCW's

Allowing the fed gov to usurp this power is a very dangerous move that WILL bite us in the long run

I agree with you. However, I think the only way that states will recognize other states' ccls will be if the leos are given the same limitations as regular citizens, which would then force most of the big cities and states like MA Ny CA CT NJ etc PDs to oppose the lack of reciprocity.
 
How'd we get so many socialists/liberals as police chiefs, anyway?

As I understand it they serve at the pleasure of the mayor. It is necessarily a political position. It's not just the most qualified cop simply working his way to the top, town politics be damned. Otherwise you'd probably see the opinion of LEOs reflected more consistently by the COP.

Mike
 
Eliminating multiple classes of citizens would be a good step but its only one piece of the puzzle.....and lets not forget that the biggest problem revolves around out of control fed gov.....we need to work to get it back to handling its constitutional responsibilities and drop the usurpation of states powers never granted to it......

The goal wrt RKBA imho should always be a full repeal of 34 and 68 GCA's

If it was just going for the full repeal of the 34 and 68 GCAs there would never be a chance to be at the table. It would be dismissed as irrelevant. It's a nice sentiment on a forum but a guaranteed loser in the legislature.

And I find it interesting that some here are against fed reciprocity as fed overreach but at the same time say they want the states to respect 2a, which is fed. Let's face it, the fed courts aren't going to shoot down all the anti 2a state stuff, so it's up to the legislative branch, and that means stepping on the states. Reciprocity isn't a full respect the 2a law, but it does push back on states that are trashing 2a. It's far more politically posible than a specific preemption clause (which I would personally prefer). It's a small step int he right direction. Don't let your dedication to a goal blind you to a path in the right direction.
 
Evans got the job for the same reason the guy he replaced got it.
Deleo's arm was a perfect fit up his backside to move his mouth , nothing more.
You can't tell me that the guy is that ignorant of firearms or the law that he doesn't know that most of what comes out of his mouth when there is a mic in front of him is flat out B.S.
 
I agree with you. However, I think the only way that states will recognize other states' ccls will be if the leos are given the same limitations as regular citizens, which would then force most of the big cities and states like MA Ny CA CT NJ etc PDs to oppose the lack of reciprocity.

Were you paying attention when LEOSA was actually passed? Probably not. Those states won't care even if LEOSA was repealed tomorrow, they'd secretly be glad about it, actually. Because the shit anti places only want THEIR cops carrying in their territory/fiefdom.

Do you know what happens to cops pinged carrying under LEOSA in some commie areas? Detainment and hassle on a good day. There was a USCG guy that got arrested (in NY, IIRC) and claimed "LEOSA" status and it had to go to federal court or something to get resolved. It might be federal law but it is barely respected by the garbage states. LEOSA was not something pushed by chiefs, it was pushed by sub-brass level cops, some of their unions, and a few cops as RKBA advocates in the mix. I forget the name of the union but I think the main union pushing it was also in favor of citizens being armed, etc. The only way they pulled it off is because they had the memetic advantage that the chiefs and other miscellanous douchebags would have looked like garbage/morons for pitching the idea of "cops shouldn't be able to carry guns in another state".

-Mike
 
Because the shit anti places only want THEIR cops carrying in their territory/fiefdom.
In the old days, NY police with town or county, but not state, jurisdiction outside NYC were not allowed to carry in NYC.
There was a USCG guy that got arrested (in NY, IIRC) and claimed "LEOSA" status and it had to go to federal court or something to get resolved.
There was a legit question there - does military status (I think as an MP) with no civilian LE authority convey LEOSA status? That Coastie got lucky. The other harassment I have heard of is "do not accept LEOSA credentials on face value; detain until they can be verified with the issuing agency."
 
Mike it was FOP that pushed LEOSA for 10 yrs before it finally passed. FOP is a union that represents rank & file officers, not top brass, and is almost unheard of in this area . . . they are big in other parts of the US. MPA and BPPA are the big unions here (other than SPAM of course).
 
Were you paying attention when LEOSA was actually passed? Probably not. Those states won't care even if LEOSA was repealed tomorrow, they'd secretly be glad about it, actually. Because the shit anti places only want THEIR cops carrying in their territory/fiefdom.

Do you know what happens to cops pinged carrying under LEOSA in some commie areas? Detainment and hassle on a good day. There was a USCG guy that got arrested (in NY, IIRC) and claimed "LEOSA" status and it had to go to federal court or something to get resolved. It might be federal law but it is barely respected by the garbage states. LEOSA was not something pushed by chiefs, it was pushed by sub-brass level cops, some of their unions, and a few cops as RKBA advocates in the mix. I forget the name of the union but I think the main union pushing it was also in favor of citizens being armed, etc. The only way they pulled it off is because they had the memetic advantage that the chiefs and other miscellanous douchebags would have looked like garbage/morons for pitching the idea of "cops shouldn't be able to carry guns in another state".

-Mike

I guess what I wanted to say was if police current and retired could only carry consealed in their home states and didn't get "special" treatment, I don't think they would be supporting the nonsense put out by mousey of boston et al.,
 
In the old days, NY police with town or county, but not state, jurisdiction outside NYC were not allowed to carry in NYC.
There was a legit question there - does military status (I think as an MP) with no civilian LE authority convey LEOSA status? That Coastie got lucky. The other harassment I have heard of is "do not accept LEOSA credentials on face value; detain until they can be verified with the issuing agency."
No he claimed "boarding officer" status which was a legit question at the time. NYPD actually issued a memo to hold to verify anyone claiming LEOSA credentials. I actually read a copy of the memo when it was issued (it was on a police forum) but foolishly never saved a copy.
 
I guess what I wanted to say was if police current and retired could only carry consealed in their home states and didn't get "special" treatment, I don't think they would be supporting the nonsense put out by mousey of boston et al.,
Who says that rank & file support Skeletor and his BS?

I'm willing to bet that you won't find many "boots on the ground" officers who privately would tell you that they support his BS.
 
Who says that rank & file support Skeletor and his BS?

I'm willing to bet that you won't find many "boots on the ground" officers who privately would tell you that they support his BS.
Rank and file may not support skeletor and and his ilk but these heads and the organizations that they "represent" apparently don't receive enough negative feedback from the rank and file to change their message. I'd as likely bet that if some of the special considerations were eliminated and brought them down to the civilian level they might be a bit more forthcoming.
 
Rank and file may not support skeletor and and his ilk but these heads and the organizations that they "represent" apparently don't receive enough negative feedback from the rank and file to change their message. I'd as likely bet that if some of the special considerations were eliminated and brought them down to the civilian level they might be a bit more forthcoming.

Retribution is a powerful career killer which keeps the rank & file quiet. The only protest they can make is through the union and pray the union bosses aren't politically in-bed with the brass.
 
You dont ask for what you're willing to settle for even if its incremental

Thats negotiating 101.......and its also a lesson in why the leadership of our team is perpetually capitulating to the tyrants on the left......
There is a difference between saying "I want this, let's talk" and "Nothing but full repeal".
I don't recall, where were you on the no compromise thread? Negotiating is all about compromise.

A good example is what I said elsewhere regarding the ERPO bill in MA. In MA there is already suitability which is redundant to the ERPO. So give them the ERPO but get rid of suitability everywhere. This would be a compromise. The "we will only take this" BS is not a compromise regardless of what they call it.
 
I'll compromise.

Repeal ALL the crap gun control laws that have been passed, ever (at Federal, State and Local levels) and I'll accept a common sense provision that if you're under 18, Mom or Dad has to make the purchase of a firearm on your behalf.
Playing devil's advocate. Given the current situation it doesn't sound like you are giving up anything. That isn't a compromise any more than the anti BS they call a compromise. Although I like your non-compromise better than theirs.
 
When dealing with the antis compromise is failure on the installment plan because they don't compromise and those that compromise with them will continue to be compromised since again they don't compromise, so they are the only ones that gain anything and we lose. As someone had mentioned in either this thread or another. It's not compromise the antis want it's appeasement from us.
 
Playing devil's advocate. Given the current situation it doesn't sound like you are giving up anything. That isn't a compromise any more than the anti BS they call a compromise. Although I like your non-compromise better than theirs.

We've been compromising by giving up ground.

We need to press back and compromise in the other direction. And then abrogate that agreement and go for a compromise that regains even more ground. And repeat until we win back everything that has been lost.

New position. I agree that we MUST federally register ALL MILITARY WEAPONS that were in common use in 1776 (not reproductions or similar, ONLY those weapons that were physically in existence in the calendar year 1776 AD). And conduct background investigations with the same degree of scrutiny as used for Top Secret clearances, in order to acquire such a weapon.

(Note: And that's it. registration and TS background checks for muskets that were in existence in 1776, no other registration or checks or any controls of any sort)
 
Again, why should I capitulate/sacrifice my rights?

You started with the word "compromise", that was his point.

A compromise would be something like, "universal background check, with no record of the individual or the gun involved, and repeal of the Hughes amendment and *all* state AWBs."

They get universal background checks, we get new machineguns and no stupid "AW" laws.
 
There is a difference between saying "I want this, let's talk" and "Nothing but full repeal".
I don't recall, where were you on the no compromise thread? Negotiating is all about compromise.

A good example is what I said elsewhere regarding the ERPO bill in MA. In MA there is already suitability which is redundant to the ERPO. So give them the ERPO but get rid of suitability everywhere. This would be a compromise. The "we will only take this" BS is not a compromise regardless of what they call it.
If we “compromise” we give up something, what do the antis loose if they compromise ?
 
The point is that folks are incorrectly using the word "Compromise" when "Capitulation" is accurate

Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Unfortunately, it's not just those who would steal our rights who use it that way.
 
Long story short I told her that I thought we needed to repeal all gun control and there should be no more impediments/controls on purchase/ownership than there is for chain saws or gasoline.....and that I felt I should be able to walk into my local hardware store and purchase a belt fed machine gun and 1k of linked ammo, plunk down my cash and walk out with nothing more to the transaction......and that the solution was to lock up violent people not try to restrict access to inanimate objects......after all how well did prohibition or the so called war on drugs work out?

And vending machines that dispense Glocks.
 
And this is the whole point. They use the word "compromise" to make them sound reasonable, to paint themselves as the good guys. But there has never been a compromise, they have never even suggested one. We should not let them set the stage by using their own words improperly. The next time some anti says they want to compromise ask them what they will give up or give back to us. I'm willing to compromise. Starting with everything the way it is right now (that in itself is a big give). They want ERPOs, fine give me no more suitability and elimination of the AWB (since it's proven to be about BS cosmetics anyway).


You started with the word "compromise", that was his point.

A compromise would be something like, "universal background check, with no record of the individual or the gun involved, and repeal of the Hughes amendment and *all* state AWBs."

They get universal background checks, we get new machineguns and no stupid "AW" laws.

The point is that folks are incorrectly using the word "Compromise" when "Capitulation" is accurate

If we “compromise” we give up something, what do the antis loose if they compromise ?

We already know that their compromise is that they don't get complete gun ban 'at this time'. We should feel lucky. Sadly not satirical.

Yes, you're absolutely right about that. Unfortunately, it's not just those who would steal our rights who use it that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom