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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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