LEOSA II passes House, goes to Obama

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    I couldn't agree more. And there is at least one cop organization that's been working for about the last twenty years to do exactly that.

    I am pleased to hear that. But are you referring to LEOSA? We need an American Citizen Safety Act. And repeal whatever law you speak of that would hold a cop liable for "not acting."

    What if 12 Eastern European terrorists took over a Los Angeles skyscraper on Christmas Eve? Would an off-duty NYPD cop be charged with dereliction of duty for taking an opportunity to escape, being outnumbered, unarmed, and barefoot?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,040
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    at least in the State of Ohio

    We are not in Ohio.

    I know little of the details of Indiana law, but I simply find it impossible to believe that a LEO, in any state of the union, could simply ignore the oath and responsibilities of his office and run NO risk of legal repercussions.

    The Ohio law is very recent, 2000.

    I know of no other states that have such a statute (but I am not familiar with the statutes of all 50 states). This may be a variant of Kirk's First Law of the Internet but with Ohio being controlling, not Texas.

    Legal repercussions would be administrative or perhaps civil (if you could establish duty). The only criminal sanction I could foresee is like a Leaving the Scene of an Accident.
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    I don't know Liberty. We live in an era where fire departments let houses burn down and the Lake County Sheriff refuses to enforce the law. I'm pretty sure this is not the America we grew up in.

    Fire departments who offer to extend their services to an unserved area for a fee ought to let the house burn down if someone decides not to pay that fee.

    Are you saying that if I live in an area unprotected by a fire department and then a nearby fire department offers to extend its services to that area, but they will need a fee to do so, and then I don't pay that fee they should save my house anyway? Why would anyone pay ever pay the fee?
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,826
    113
    Brainardland
    "I am pleased to hear that. But are you referring to LEOSA? We need an American Citizen Safety Act. And repeal whatever law you speak of that would hold a cop liable for "not acting."

    I'm referring to LEAA, who originated the introduction of LEOSA, with the idea that it would lead to national concealed carry.

    "What if 12 Eastern European terrorists took over a Los Angeles skyscraper on Christmas Eve? Would an off-duty NYPD cop be charged with dereliction of duty for taking an opportunity to escape, being outnumbered, unarmed, and barefoot?"

    Nope. An off-duty NYPD cop is not commissioned to act as a LEO in Los Angeles and would have no more responsiblity to act than an ordinary citizen. If it was an off-duty California cop who escaped from the situation you describe where he would be obviously powerless to do any good, that would not constitute dereliction of duty. If he went home and turned on the football game rather than assisting responding brother officers with intelligence concerning number of suspects, nature of armament, etc., he would then, IMHO, be derelict in his duty.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I am pleased to hear that. But are you referring to LEOSA? We need an American Citizen Safety Act. And repeal whatever law you speak of that would hold a cop liable for "not acting."

    What if 12 Eastern European terrorists took over a Los Angeles skyscraper on Christmas Eve? Would an off-duty NYPD cop be charged with dereliction of duty for taking an opportunity to escape, being outnumbered, unarmed, and barefoot?

    Some people are just diehards. ;)
     

    SemperFiUSMC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2009
    3,480
    38
    Fire departments who offer to extend their services to an unserved area for a fee ought to let the house burn down if someone decides not to pay that fee.

    Are you saying that if I live in an area unprotected by a fire department and then a nearby fire department offers to extend its services to that area, but they will need a fee to do so, and then I don't pay that fee they should save my house anyway? Why would anyone pay ever pay the fee?

    There used to be a day when the town bell rang and everyone ran down to join the bucket brigade. My comment is more of lamenting days gone by and an indictment of the fact that there's a policy that failure to pay an up-front fee results in your house burning down while the firemen sit on the truck and watch.
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    Spending the night armed CC'ing in Charleston, WVA. Then off in the morning for a couple days camping in VA and then off to the Outer Banks in NC.

    LEOSA is a beautiful thing. :)

    And I'm not rubbing it in...just an update.

    Right, Rub it In ;) & Pour Salt into the Open Wound. Your Loving every Minute of it. Kinda like arresting the mope who just loudly proclaimed, "You Can't Arrest Me" right before the click of the cuffs. Have a great safe time on vacation :yesway:
     

    Prometheus

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 20, 2008
    4,462
    48
    Northern Indiana
    What it does do is provide a photo ID that allows out of state carry for the Retired officer and Provides Uniformity and Clarification to existing Federal Law

    I remember a few years ago when all the LEO's were saying "This is a stepping stone to national carry reciprocity..."

    Liars.

    It makes absolutely no sense for the servants to be able to do things their masters are prohibited from doing.

    Elitism is alive and well. US Citizens: the new negros.
     

    Lobo

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 2, 2010
    535
    16
    I remember a few years ago when all the LEO's were saying "This is a stepping stone to national carry reciprocity..."

    Liars.

    It makes absolutely no sense for the servants to be able to do things their masters are prohibited from doing.

    Elitism is alive and well. US Citizens: the new negros.

    I agree that all law abiding US citizens should have the right to carry anywhere on US soil. But this post is kind of odd to me. Servants and masters? What is this, 12th century England? :):

    If you truly think that you are the master of a duly sworn law enforcement officer, then try getting him to make you a sandwich. :D

    Yes, the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. But once duly sworn into a recognized position as provided by law, a government official has certain authorities that citizens do not, depending on his or her position. It is not a "servant-master" relationship as you are implying, much like we do not directly vote on issues, but rely on a representative to vote for us. This is the nature of a representative republic.

    You are not anyone's master, nor is an LEO or any other government official anyone's master. Neither is anyone your personal servant. The term "public servant" means someone who is employed by the government in a public service, not someone who does your bidding. We are all citizens, some citizens are employed in government positions which come with inherent authorities. This is necessary in a governed society.

    It has taken many years for a majority of the states to enact pro-carry legislation across the US, with many mandating reciprocity with other states. I would not expect nationwide carry in the next ten minutes, simply because LEO's are generally supportive of a law-abiding citizen's right to carry. Besides, it is not the LEO who has any say in whether nationwide CCW should become law, it is up to congress and the president. There have been bills introduced to enact nationwide reciprocity, so the effort is there. Shouting "Liars!" is a bit much, I think.

    And US citizens being the "new negroes?" :rolleyes: Laughable.

    :twocents:
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    I remember a few years ago when all the LEO's were saying "This is a stepping stone to national carry reciprocity..."

    Liars.

    It makes absolutely no sense for the servants to be able to do things their masters are prohibited from doing.

    Elitism is alive and well. US Citizens: the new negros.

    Servants 1 Masters 0 :D
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    I agree that all law abiding US citizens should have the right to carry anywhere on US soil. But this post is kind of odd to me. Servants and masters? What is this, 12th century England? :):

    If you truly think that you are the master of a duly sworn law enforcement officer, then try getting him to make you a sandwich. :D

    Yes, the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. But once duly sworn into a recognized position as provided by law, a government official has certain authorities that citizens do not, depending on his or her position. It is not a "servant-master" relationship as you are implying, much like we do not directly vote on issues, but rely on a representative to vote for us. This is the nature of a representative republic.

    You are not anyone's master, nor is an LEO or any other government official anyone's master. Neither is anyone your personal servant. The term "public servant" means someone who is employed by the government in a public service, not someone who does your bidding. We are all citizens, some citizens are employed in government positions which come with inherent authorities. This is necessary in a governed society.

    It has taken many years for a majority of the states to enact pro-carry legislation across the US, with many mandating reciprocity with other states. I would not expect nationwide carry in the next ten minutes, simply because LEO's are generally supportive of a law-abiding citizen's right to carry. Besides, it is not the LEO who has any say in whether nationwide CCW should become law, it is up to congress and the president. There have been bills introduced to enact nationwide reciprocity, so the effort is there. Shouting "Liars!" is a bit much, I think.

    And US citizens being the "new negroes?" :rolleyes: Laughable.

    :twocents:

    Lobo, I believe his point was that government employees are hired to serve the public as a whole, not that he or any other single individual is anyone's master. Those who serve the public are allowed to do more than those who employ them, and this is what's wrong with LEOSA. No one I know of begrudges the RTC to LEOs; rather I think they, like I, believe that there should be no need for LEOSA because that right should not be denied any free American.

    The point of "Liars." is fairly clear to me; the people who originally wanted LEOSA knew they'd have an uphill battle. INGO member Liberty Sanders was involved in that from its inception and has said as much. LEOs carrying nationwide was an easier "sell" 20-odd years ago than "universal carry", but it was, as Prometheus said, supposed to be a stepping stone toward it. Granted, we've moved significantly that direction with more and more states reducing their infringements on RTC, but we still don't have it. It seems that the people behind LEOSA now have their RTC protected and have therefore lost the political will to continue the fight for the rest of us.

    He's not addressing that comment to the beat cop but to those who speak for large groups like for example the Association of Police Chiefs (IACP, is it?) and the FOP... people who are to LEOs what the NRA is to the average gun owner- a talking head who doesn't get it right very often because of differences in priorities.

    As for his last comment, I can only interpret that to refer to the former condition of slavery, wherein the "negroes" were expected to serve, and take it to mean that he sees the apparent governmental view that the people exist to serve government, rather than the reverse.

    Prometheus, if I've misstated, please correct the errors. I only spoke up because you were offline when I started this.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Lobo

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 2, 2010
    535
    16
    Lobo, I believe his point was that government employees are hired to serve the public as a whole, not that he or any other single individual is anyone's master. Those who serve the public are allowed to do more than those who employ them, and this is what's wrong with LEOSA. No one I know of begrudges the RTC to LEOs; rather I think they, like I, believe that there should be no need for LEOSA because that right should not be denied any free American.

    The point of "Liars." is fairly clear to me; the people who originally wanted LEOSA knew they'd have an uphill battle. INGO member Liberty Sanders was involved in that from its inception and has said as much. LEOs carrying nationwide was an easier "sell" 20-odd years ago than "universal carry", but it was, as Prometheus said, supposed to be a stepping stone toward it. Granted, we've moved significantly that direction with more and more states reducing their infringements on RTC, but we still don't have it. It seems that the people behind LEOSA now have their RTC protected and have therefore lost the political will to continue the fight for the rest of us.

    He's not addressing that comment to the beat cop but to those who speak for large groups like for example the Association of Police Chiefs (IACP, is it?) and the FOP... people who are to LEOs what the NRA is to the average gun owner- a talking head who doesn't get it right very often because of differences in priorities.

    As for his last comment, I can only interpret that to refer to the former condition of slavery, wherein the "negroes" were expected to serve, and take it to mean that he sees the apparent governmental view that the people exist to serve government, rather than the reverse.

    Prometheus, if I've misstated, please correct the errors. I only spoke up because you were offline when I started this.

    Blessings,
    Bill

    Your post is reasonable and well articulated. Although I may agree or disagree with your post in part, or in entirety, there is no doubt that you can make your point without resorting to hyperbole or name calling. Others? Not so much. It is in this vein that I responded to Prometheus, because I've seen the nature of the majority of his posts, and know exactly what he means when he talks about servants and masters.

    Legislation for nationwide reciprocity was last introduced in 2007, if my research is correct. Obviously, there has been a setback in achieving that goal, given the current administration. Certainly, this is an issue that needs to remain in the public eye, but one would have to be somewhat deluded to think that the legislation could pass both houses now, let alone be signed into law by the current president. Perhaps if there is a sea change this November, work can begin anew on the federal level. But for now, the winnable battles are in the state governments, where gains have certainly been made in the last 20 years.

    I fully agree with you that LEOSA shouldn't even be necessary, and that every citizen should enjoy the right to bear arms in his or her defense, anywhere in the US. However, ignoring political realities and screaming "liar!" and "negroes!" from the peanut gallery is hardly helpful.

    And I hardly think that a "master" needs someone to speak for him. ;)
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Your post is reasonable and well articulated. Although I may agree or disagree with your post in part, or in entirety, there is no doubt that you can make your point without resorting to hyperbole or name calling. Others? Not so much. It is in this vein that I responded to Prometheus, because I've seen the nature of the majority of his posts, and know exactly what he means when he talks about servants and masters.

    Legislation for nationwide reciprocity was last introduced in 2007, if my research is correct. Obviously, there has been a setback in achieving that goal, given the current administration. Certainly, this is an issue that needs to remain in the public eye, but one would have to be somewhat deluded to think that the legislation could pass both houses now, let alone be signed into law by the current president. Perhaps if there is a sea change this November, work can begin anew on the federal level. But for now, the winnable battles are in the state governments, where gains have certainly been made in the last 20 years.

    I fully agree with you that LEOSA shouldn't even be necessary, and that every citizen should enjoy the right to bear arms in his or her defense, anywhere in the US. However, ignoring political realities and screaming "liar!" and "negroes!" from the peanut gallery is hardly helpful.

    And I hardly think that a "master" needs someone to speak for him. ;)

    Well, there is the matter that I agree with much of what he says as well, not to mention that it's my job here to moderate... I try to keep arguments from blowing up where I can and at a minimum, keep them on track and focused on the discussion, not the participants. Sometimes, that's not easy, but jumping in and interpreting is one of the easier methods, at least for me. I do try to remember to turn it back to the person I'm "translating" and give them the floor to correct if I'm mistaken in my "read" of what they've written. I actually got one of those corrections from someone earlier tonight, though the correction was not one either of us needed to have show up on the open board. We do have different styles of collecting, organizing, and presenting our thoughts. I prefer mine, he prefers his. They are seldom similar, but we both tend to call a spade a spade... He just tends to add that it's a ****ing shovel as well, far more often than I do. :):

    LEOSA passed in 2004. It's been six years. Bush lost the Congress in 2006, but we had all of 2005 and all of 2006 before they were seated in early 2007 to remove the rest of those restrictions. So, so many states had changed in the 20 years ending in 2006 from no issue to shall issue. Alaska had gone to Constitutional Carry. There is no reason I can see why this would have stalled in those two years other than that it did not have the support of the leaders of those LEO lobbying groups, though LEOSA had the support of both citizen groups and citizens themselves, given the promise of continuing the fight.

    I can't fault the Democrat-controlled Congress or the Democrat executive officeholder entirely for it not passing, but I have yet to see a "brassy" police official make news by coming out in favor of not reciprocity but simple enforcement of the uninfringed 2A. It took until 2008 for our nation's capital to be told they had to honor the Constitution, as amended, on this issue. That is SHAMEFUL!! It took another two years for SCOTUS to tell the cities and states they had to honor it, and in both cases, almost half of the Court dissented! In both cases, the clear, easily-understood words of the Amendments, both 2A and 10A and the less-easily parsed 14A were ignored and "shall not be infringed" was codified into "reasonable restrictions" by Justices who supposedly are Constitutional purists.

    Most of that is not completely germane. The point that is is that the police officials, whether IACP or FOP or whoever are not standing up with the commitment shown during the fight for their universal RTC. If the promise was made that they would do so, then liars they are and no amount of explanation, excuse, or sugar-coating will change that. Similarly, when government employees act to restrict those who employ them more strictly than they do themselves, that is an attempt to make the servant the master. Those passing such regulations, laws, orders (from the bench or the executive's desk) or "signing statements" need to be dealt with as the slaves of old were when they were found fomenting rebellion or trying to supplant their masters... I'm not picky; such people can be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail, they can be horsewhipped, or if their acts truly do rise to the level of treason, they can have an appointment with a rope or they can go to the wall with a cigarette and a blindfold, but while none of those things will happen, such people damn sure don't need to be rewarded by being allowed to stay in power.

    Insofar as LEOSA is concerned, my ire is reserved for the people who may have once been cops but have traded that role for that of appeaser. There might be one I'm aware of who didn't do that, but I don't know if he's still in a position to influence the change that needs to happen. With that one exception... I'd agree with Prometheus that one who does not tell the truth and one who does not keep a promise... that person is the aforementioned spade. I would be doing those whose integrity and honesty is important to them a disservice to not call such a person a ****ing shovel as well.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Prometheus

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 20, 2008
    4,462
    48
    Northern Indiana
    Prometheus, if I've misstated, please correct the errors. I only spoke up because you were offline when I started this.

    Blessings,
    Bill
    You hit the nails on the head down the line.

    Lobo:

    Your posts reminds me of one where the uninformed (I'll refrain from using the word ignorant because of it's apparent negative connotation you might infer) new friend of a 'well to do' person drops by the house and is greeted by the butler and the new friend thinks the butler is a servant (read slave) and starts barking orders and expecting foot massages.

    Like a modern day butler, a police officer is employed BY CHOICE in their current profession and well compensated for it. Neither is a slave and both are noble professions. A butler is actually a management position that oversees the other staff technically, but I'm digressing.

    As to US Citizens being the "new negros", how else would you term it? The first gun control laws were placed solely upon the blacks. What has happened is that instead of treating us all equal as free men, we are all treated as second class citizens. Which, when last used, was officially termed negro. How are we all not treated in such a way today?

    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    Abraham Lincoln
    Uh-oh... did he say that? :cool:
     
    Top Bottom