Keep and Bear Arms
Home Members Login/Join About Us News/Editorials Archives Take Action Your Voice Web Services Free Email
You are 1 of 921 active visitors Friday, December 14, 2018

Keep and Bear Arms

Cops-Only CCW -- Home Page

Cops-Only CCW -- Gun Rights Leades

Let's Look Closely at the LEO Groups Who Support Cops-Only CCW....

Poll Results Relating to Cops-Only CCW

Cartoons Relating to Cops-Only CCW

Text of Legislation Calling for Cops-Only CCW

Main Email List:
Click Here

State Email Lists:
Click Here

Keep and Bear Arms

SUPPORT US

Keep and Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms Join Online
Join by Mail
Make a Donation
Magazine Subscriptions

KABA Memorial Fund
Advertise Here
Pro Gun Long Distance
Buy KABA Merchandise
Shop Our Mall Stores

JOIN  NOW!

Keep and Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms

OUR SUPPORTERS

Keep and Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms




Keep and Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms

SUGGESTED READING

Keep and Bear Arms
Keep and Bear Arms
The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves by Robert Waters

Recent news stories of armed citizens using guns effectively for self-defense

Keep and Bear Arms

Keep and Bear Arms

Gun Rights Groups & Leaders Oppose This Type of Elitist Special Exemption

Where Gun Rights Groups and Prominent Leaders Stand
on the concept of Giving Law Enforcement Officers
Exemptions from Concealed Carry Laws in all 50 States
While Those Same Laws Continue to Be Enforced
Against The People

Gun Rights Organization or Prominent Leader

Support Oppose
Alan Korwin (author of the foremost Gun Laws books in America) x
Armed Females of America x
Brassroots x
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms x
Citizens Gun Rights Alliance x
Citizens of America x
Civil Rights Task Force x
Claire Wolfe x
Concealed Carry, Inc. x
Concerned Citizens Opposed to Police States x
Colorado State Shooting Association (NRA affiliated) x
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws x
Firearms Action Committee - Tucson x
Free-Market.net  
Geoff Metcalf (WorldNetDaily columnist and radio host) x
Gun Owners New Jersey x
GrassRoots South Carolina x
GunCite x
Gun Owners of America x
Howard J. Fezell (former NRA Director, 1994-98) x
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership x
KeepAndBearArms.com x
Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed x
L. Neil Smith x
Liberty Belles x
Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (NRA affiliated) x
Montana Shooting Sports Association x
National Rifle Association Click Here x
Neal Knox (publicly stated) x
Oregon Firearms Federation x
People's Rights Organization x
Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), an NRA Board Member x
Rep. Don Young (R-AK), an NRA Board Member x
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners x
Second Amendment Coalition of Florida x
Second Amendment Foundation  
Seniors United Supporting the Second Amendment x
Shooters' Committee on Political Education -- New York x
Sierra Times x
Tennessee Firearms Association x
The Libertarian Enterprise x
Tyranny Response Team x
Utah Gun Owners Alliance x
Virginia Citizens Defense League x

TOTAL:

Support Oppose
4 40


If you lead an organization or have achieved some level of success as a leader for gun rights and would like to put your name or organization's name on this chart, click here and send it in. Include a statement to be used below, as well, if it pleases you.

Back to "Cops-Only National CCW" Home Page


Leaders Speak Out...

Following are statements offered by some of the above gun rights activists and organizations. Use the link above to allow you to add your organization to the above listing. Click on the names below to be taken to the related statements addressing this issue:

Alan Korwin
Author, Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com 

The bill, H.R. 218, raises important questions:

Should we exempt police from gun laws in all 50 states?

Why are gun possession restrictions in place to begin with?

Should denial of 2nd Amendment rights for public continue?

Do government workers deserve a waiver from obeying the law?

If the law is so bad, why would you want to force the public to obey it?

Why would honest government workers support rights for themselves, without supporting it for their fellow citizens?

The current government proposal to arm active, or off-duty or retired government employees so they needn't be defenseless, in every place where the rest of the public is unconscionably required to be unarmed, is the exact opposite of what the Constitution intends. It is Newthink.

It is preposterous that agents of the government would grant themselves gun rights that have been stripped from the public. It shows how far we've sunken from the rule of law we claim to cherish. Ex-police and the other government employees I pay for should be made to suffer like the rest of us, until the onerous tarpaulin of repression is lifted from all.

I'm in favor of and support full restoration of self-defense rights for the public. I'm against the discriminatory notion of granting rights solely to any segregated group.

Denying a person the right to self defense is treachery.

Alan Korwin

Carma Lewis
National Director

Armed Females of America

By giving Cops special status we are telling them that they are better than we are. Just as a pilot is only a pilot as long as he is in an airplane, so it is with LEOs -- when they're on duty they're Law Enforcement Officers, but when they're off duty they're just like the rest of us "ordinary" citizens. The laws that we must endure, so must they.

Special status exemption would open the doors to a whole new set of problems. It wouldn't be long before a "National Police Force" was created, and with the stroke of a pen the exempt LEOs would have the authority to investigate, detain and arrest anyone outside of their jurisdiction.

AFA is NO-COMPROMISE, therefore we fully support a Vermont style carry. The Second Amendment gives each citizen the right to carry openly or concealed, whichever way they choose. We do not support any legislation that would allow one group special privileges over another group. This would be elitism at it's best.

It would foster LESS from the pro-second amendment/pro-rights citizens. They are already aware of the attack on their liberties and what special exemption status would mean to them. However, I'm afraid it would be just what the anti-second amendment arena would applaud.

AFA believes that until such time as there is a Vermont style CCW, LEOs should be subjected to the same laws that the citizenry is. The majority of LEOs would like to see a disarmed populace. Every LEO has a duty to uphold the law of the land, but only within his/her jurisdiction. National LEO CCW would erode and pervert that duty.

It is for this very reason I am opposed. I find it offensive that an LEO from NO CCW California could carry in pro-CCW Arizona.

Carma Lewis

Claire Wolfe

I oppose this legislation adamantly, both because it is elitist (and based on the wrong-headed assumption that all police are morally superior and more skilled and judicious with firearms than other citizens are) and because I oppose all legislation that gives government the authority to determine who can and can't go armed.

We are very close to a police state -- so close since September 11 that if we stop and use our senses, we can feel it breathing down our necks. If you want to feel its iron hand closing on you, give police a personal, 24-hour a day exemption from laws that govern the rest of the people.

Claire Wolfe

Tony Fabian
President

Colorado State Shooting Association

The Colorado State Shooting Association does not support the proposed measure. We believe you have, for the most part, adequately addressed the pros and cons in your message and have demonstrated that the cons outweigh the pros.

We would, however, add a new wrinkle in that this proposal also appears to be unconstitutional--from where does the federal government derive the authority for this measure? We do not believe interstate commerce is affected by the travel of state peace officers to the point that Congress can invoke the Commerce Clause in this matter, and that regulation of concealed weapons is a matter traditionally and appropriately left to the individual states. The only way around this constitutional argument would be for the federal government to make all law enforcement officers everywhere federal peace officers. I don't think I need to explain what a bad idea that is.

Thanks for seeking our input.

Tony Fabian

 

Ken Rineer
President

Firearms Action Committee - Tucson

I am adamantly opposed to HR 218. I frame my stance against this piece of legislation just as I did at the Arizona State legislation allowing CCW permittees to defend themselves in parks less than one square mile in size but not those without CCW permits.

It is unfair, unjust and blatantly unconstitutional. Whenever a group of legiscritters grants privileges or immunities for one group of People over another group of People, they harm their own credibility because People such as myself know they are wrong in doing so.

It further disenfranchises the People from the political process and in the end, the legiscritters win because the only People left in the process when all is said and done is the sheeple who will vote them back into office because they got their grains of rice thrown to them from the hand of government.

Keep 'em fat, dumb and happy.

Gary Marbut
President

Montana Shooting Sports Association

While law enforcement officers (LEOs) are super people, and we all thank them for their selfless service to the public, they are no better people than we are, and they have no more need or ability to protect themselves in places strange to them than do the rest of us.

There is not supposed to be any such thing in the U.S. as elite classes of people with more rights and privileges than the majority. Such an arrangement would be reminiscent of the Gestapo and SS of Hitler's Germany.

Further, citizens with concealed weapon permits (CWP) have proven nationwide to have an impeccable record of absence of misadventure with firearms, even better (unfortunately) than that for sworn law enforcement officers. Law enforcement personnel have more accidental discharges per 100,000 than do CWP-holders, and law enforcement personnel more commonly shoot the wrong person, or shoot without sufficient justification than do non-police CWP-holders. Any rationale that cops are somehow more competent to have firearms is simply nonexistent. The only acceptable rationale for awarding cops national concealed weapon privileges is to reward them for their service. However, the Lott study demonstrates that CWP-holders offer a significant service and benefit to their communities too. Why not reward everyone who contributes to public safety, and who is competent to do so?

I believe that LEOs should benefit from the CWP laws passed in many states, and that all states should respect the laws passed by other states, as is currently the case with drivers' licenses. Such an arrangement would solve everyone's problem, without attempting to create an elite class of citizens who have more rights and privileges than others.

Gary Marbut

Kevin Starrett
Executive Director

Oregon Firearms Federation

HR 218, whatever the intentions of its misguided supporters, is a giant step backwards for gun owners.

On Nov. 8th, 2001, Sarah Brady said to her suicidal followers:

"I must tell you that that our financial shortfall is seriously jeopardizing our ability to meet this challenge. In fact, as a part of our forced downsizing and restructuring, we have been forced to lay off approximately 20 percent of our staff."

Clearly the tide is turning for gun owners. It would be the height of lunacy to support any bill which reinforces the elitist, even fascist, concept that the police are entitled to more rights than the people who employ them.

This is the very notion that Brady and her cronies have been foisting on America for years, that the natural right to self defense belongs only to government employees.

The fact remains, while police officers accept a job that can be dangerous, they are no different from the rest of us. They are not created in test tubes with super human skills and judgment.

Agreeing that government employees have greater rights than do the rest of us will accomplish one thing. It will relieve the Bradys of the world from the ever more difficult task of raising funds to promote their lies because we will be doing it for them.

Kevin Starrett

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners opposed similar state legislation based on one simple fact: it creates two classes of citizens, elevating the lives of police officers above other citizens.

Police officers are no different than the citizens they are sworn to protect, and shouldn't be treated differently. They should have to stand in line for their permits, if indeed permits are required.

Frankly, if we had a nationwide Vermont law, where all law-abiding citizens (cops, bakers, plumbers, homemakers) could carry without government restriction or harassment, law enforcement would be better off -- and so would U.S. citizens.

Dudley Brown

Mann Killian
President
Second Amendment Coalition of Florida

SACFLA is diametrically opposed to H.R. 218 -- the Second Amendment makes no provision for any such exception. It, in it's own words, emphatically states the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is nothing magical or exceptional about any person wearing a badge.

They tell us equal protection is for all Americans, don't they? This is not Animal Farm -- some are not more equal than others. Special privileges from the law are only for tyrants. "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." 

The proposed bill is in direct violation of Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. 

Lick the boot of the tyrant who oppresses you? Throw gasoline on a fire to put it out? Give them more power in hope they will leave you alone? 

We have been trained to get caught up in discussing these meaningless side issues when the focus should be on the meaning, intent, and letter of the Second Amendment. Our politicians must be made to understand that this is the real issue or they will be flipping burgers after the next election. There's no interpretation here. There's no interpretation in any of our forefathers' writings or speeches. They were very clear on their intent of the Second Amendment. Our elected "representatives" have sworn to "uphold, protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and have largely violated that oath. Some would call that treasonous.

Mann Killian

John Bender
President
Seniors United Supporting the Second Amendment

Any time we can put more armed people on the streets the society becomes safer. Exempting anyone from the unconstitutional state bans on the right to bear arms is an idea that looks good when one first hears it.

Unfortunately, this will create more problems than it solves. Many law officers only become aware of the importance of the right to bear arms when they are denied that right. Vacations and retirement bring many police officers to the realization that unarmed citizens are easy prey. Suddenly these people face the same situation as the average citizen faces. They have to prepare to defend themselves and their families unarmed.

This law also sets up a new privileged class who has special rights. This proposed law also reinforces the spurious idea that the right to bear arms is a privilege instead of a right. Privileges are doled out to favored groups. Rights belong to everyone.

It also reinforces the idea that the federal government may over ride the will of the states at any time for any reason. This is a direct attack on the Tenth Amendment.

This bill should never become law.

John Bender

The Libertarian Enterprise

"This country doesn't need yet another elite group who exercise rights that have been taken away from everybody else." --L. Neil Smith

John Harris
Executive Director

Tennessee Firearms Association

Tennessee may be a case study.

Tennessee requires it citizens to obtain civilian handgun carry permits. Law enforcement officers can obtain the civilian permits and actually have exceptions to some of the training requirements.

However, Tennesseans are burdened by restrictions on where and when they may carry their handguns such that they can only carry with certain on most public streets. Almost every other location is proscribed by law or subject to posting at the whims of property owners.

Last year, the state of Tennessee created special exemptions to the civilian handgun carry laws for off-duty law enforcement officers. As a result of that legislation, which was opposed by many civilian handgun permit holders, off duty law enforcement officers can now carry their firearms in places and under circumstances where other civilians cannot carry. The enactment of this legislation may have been form over substance because off duty law enforcement have carried full time in Tennessee wherever and whenever they wanted for many years based upon the policies of their departments and their presumption that they had a right or obligation to do so. Indeed, we can all assume that they felt that they were unlikely, if caught, to be arrested for carrying their weapons once it was determined they were off duty law enforcement. The legislation, however, arose as a result of a Tennessee attorney's general opinion which addressed the issue and made law enforcement rush to the legislature to pass a law which would solve the potential problems addressed in the attorney general opinion. Now, the law is clear in Tennessee as a result of a Tennessee Supreme Court decision approximately a year ago that an off duty law enforcement officer is 'just another citizen' - they have no special status under Tennessee law. Nevertheless, the Tennessee legislature has rushed in for the purpose of creating for them a special class of civilian permit holder status - the off duty officer.

This legislation demonstrated the fact that law enforcement has seen itself in Tennessee as deserving special status and privileges. The arguments were manifest - they were more likely to be able to prevent a crime if armed while off-duty; they were "required" to carry 24/7; they were obligated by statute (although no such statute exists) to immediately go "on duty" and intervene if they witnessed a crime; they were more likely to be assaulted by those that they had arrested and prosecuted - the excuses went on. The fact is that their lives and those of their families are as important but not more important than those of every other Tennessean.

Factors not considered by Tennessee law enforcement and issues left open by the Tennessee legislation:

Do the officers get paid "overtime" if they while off-duty come to the aid of a citizen?

Are the officers entitled to workers compensation and pension benefits if injured while "off-duty" but while coming to the aid of a third party?

Is the government liable if an "off-duty" officer shoots or injures an innocent third party while armed and "off duty"?

Why do we have or need to distinguish between "on" and "off" duty officers - why aren't they just officers like the rest of us are just teachers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, government employees, and blue collar works?

Why do we presume that an "off duty" officer has any greater civic duty than any other citizen to render aid to third parties?

Why do we presume that an "off duty" officer will assume any greater duty?

Creating special exceptions to civilian carry rights and laws based upon present or past employment or training is arbitrary and capricious. It panders to specific groups for nothing more than political purposes. Once passed, it either takes them out of the

debate or moves them to the other side of the issue.

John Harris

Back to "Cops-Only National CCW" Home Page


 QUOTES TO REMEMBER
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

 
NOTICE:  The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of KeepAndBearArms.com.

Thawte.com is the leading provider of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificate solutions used by enterprises, Web sites, and consumers to conduct secure communications and transactions over the Internet and private networks.

KeepAndBearArms.com, Inc. © 1999-2018, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy